Interim Order 9

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: -1-
5 CS DJ 881/23
NANUA SINGH Vs. RAMESH AND ANR.
16.09.2026
Present: Sh. R. K. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff
alongwith plaintiff in person.
Sh. Ashu Bhindwar, Ld. Counsel for the defendants
alongwith defendants no.1 and 2 in person.
1. Evidence affidavit of PW-1 filed on behalf of the
plaintiff alongwith list of witnesses. Copy supplied.
2. Arguments on the pending application under Order 7
Rule 11 CPC heard. Record carefully perused.
3. This is a suit for partition filed by one brother against his
three siblings in respect of the suit property which is alleged to be
self acquired property of the father of the parties duly purchased by
him through a Sale Deed dated 14.04.1960. Defendants no.1 and 2
have alleged in their Written Statement that during his lifetime, the
father of the parties Late Sh. Manak Chand had executed a Will
(mentioned as Conveyance Deed in paragraph no.11 of Written
Statement) dated 31.01.2005 in favour of the defendants no.1 and 2
qua the suit property. The plaintiff is well aware about this
Conveyance Deed has deliberately concealed facts from the Court.
These facts have been disputed by the plaintiff in the replication.
4. Issues have already been framed in this matter vide order
dated 23.09.2025 and matter is at the stage of evidence.
Contd……
-- 1 of 3 --
-2-
5. In application under consideration, rejection of the plaint
is sought primarily on two grounds. Firstly, that the plaintiff not
being in possession of the suit property was required to pay Court
Fees on his share of valuation of the suit property which has not been
paid by him. Secondly, it is alleged that the false and fabricated
averments have been made in the plaint which are apparent on record
and accordingly, rejection of the plaint is sought.
6.
Per contra, plaintiff has alleged himself to be in
constructive possession of the suit property being a joint owner of the
suit property and has thus, paid fixed Court Fees. It is also alleged
that the allegations of false averments are a matter of trial and cannot
be decided at this stage.
7. I have heard the submissions made. As regards the
contention of the defendants regarding false averments made by the
plaintiff in the plaint, they are disputed questions of facts which can
be decided only after appreciation of evidence led by both the parties.
Any such objections cannot be made a ground for rejection of the
plaint at initial stages in a summary manner. As regards the Court
Fees, it is a settled law that possession of one of the joint owner is the
possession of all and unless specific ouster of the plaintiff is proved
on record, he can file a suit for partition by simply paying a fixed
Court Fees and not
ad-voleram Court Fees on his share of the suit
property. Since in the present case, the plaintiff has alleged that he
is in constructive possession of the suit property being the joint
owner and there is no specific pleadings of ouster made by the
Contd……
-- 2 of 3 --
-3-
defendants, at this stage, no directions are required to be passed for
payment of additional Court Fees. Accordingly, no merit is found in
the application under consideration. The application of the defendants
under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is, thus, dismissed.
8. Renotify for PE on 11.12.2026.
(Shivali Sharma)
District Judge-06, Central
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/16.09.2026(k)
-- 3 of 3 --