Delhi High Court – Orders
Anil Kumar Vohra & Ors vs Radhika Jain & Ors on 2 February, 2026
Author: Subramonium Prasad
Bench: Subramonium Prasad
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 191/2023 & I.A. 5503/2023, I.A. 5505/2023, I.A.
21774/2023, I.A. 3875/2025, O.A. 125/2023
ANIL KUMAR VOHRA & ORS. .....Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Shivam Goel, Ms. Ramya S.
Goel, Ms. Sanya Sharma, Advs. along
with Plaintiff No.1 in person
versus
RADHIKA JAIN & ORS. .....Defendants
Through: Dr. Arun Mohan, Sr. Adv with Mr.
Arvind Bhatt, Ms. Swastika Singh
and Ms. Ritika Choubey Advocates
for D-1.
Mr. Avneesh Garg, Adv. For D-4 to 6
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
ORDER
% 02.02.2026
I.A. 3875/2025
1. This is an application on behalf of Defendant No.1 under Order VII
Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint.
2. The present suit is one for partition of assets of Late Ram Sarup
Vohra & Sons (Hindu Undivided Family) consisting of the property bearing
No. 65/11, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi-110005 (hereinafter
referred to as the “Suit Property”). There are other prayers for injunction
and damages also.
3. The averments in the plaint indicate that the patriarch of the family,
CS(OS) 191/2023 Page 1 of 14
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/02/2026 at 20:37:16
Mr. Ram Sarup Vohra and his wife Mrs. Gomti Devi Vohra had 12 children.
The parties to the Suit are children and the grandchildren of Late Ram Sarup
Vohra.
4. It is stated in the plaint that Late Ram Sarup Vohra, who was born in
1902, was in Government service and later on conferred with the title of
„Rai Sahib‟ on 01.01.1946 by the then-Viceroy of India. At the time of
retirement, he held the post of Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Defence,
Government of India and had substantial earnings and savings.
5. It is stated that in the year 1958, Late Ram Sarup Vohra retired from
service and decided to purchase a property from his own funds and
constitute an HUF as well. He then came to purchase the Suit Property. It is
stated that though the entire funding of the Suit Property was made by Late
Ram Sarup Vohra, a Sale Deed dated 21.03.1958 was also executed by him
in the name of his two sons, namely, Late Guru Swarup Vohra and Late
Anand Swarup Vohra.
6. The Suit Property was purchased for a consideration of Rs.60,000/-,
while certain further expenses of about Rs.4,000/- were incurred in transfer
by way of stamp duty, registration, legal expenses, etc. It is specifically
averred in the plaint that at the time of purchasing the Suit Property, his two
sons were not in a position to purchase the Suit Property from their own
funds. The status of each of the children of Late Ram Sarup Vohra at the
time of purchase of the Suit Property has been stated in the plaint.
7. It is stated in the plaint that at around the time when the Suit Property
was purchased, Late Ram Sarup Vohra executed a Declaration dated
30.03.1958 on his letterhead, categorically declaring that the Suit Property
has been purchased by the HUF. The said Declaration has been filed along
CS(OS) 191/2023 Page 2 of 14
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/02/2026 at 20:37:16
with the Plaint, and reads as under:-
“I declare as under:
1. That property bearing No.11/65 New Rohtak Road
New Delhi-5 was purchased by the Hindu Undivided
Family, Ram Saraup Vohra & Sons in March 1958.
2. That though the property stands jointly in the name
of my sons i.e. Sarvashri G.S.Vohra and Shri A.S.
Vohra’s name, in fact, the money for purchase of this
property was paid by me out of the common H U.F.
Funds. I being the Karta of H.U.F. comprising myself
and my sons Shri G.S. Vohra, Shri A.S. Vohra, Shri
P.S. Vohra and Shri N.S. Vohra, Shri I.J. Vohra, Shri
D.R. Vohra, A.K Vohra, Shri V.K. Vohra, Shri Anil
Kumar Vohra & Shri S.K Vohra.”
8. It is further stated that at the request of Late Ram Sarup Vohra, one
brother, i.e., Late Anand Swarup Vohra, in whose name the Suit Property
was purchased, also made a Declaration dated 15.05.1958, stating that the
Suit Property has been purchased by the patriarch Late Ram Sarup Vohra.
The said Declaration has also been filed along with the documents, which
reads as under:-
“I, Anand Sarup Vohra S/o Shri Ram Sarup Vohra R/o
11/65 New Rohtak Road, New Delhi-5 do hereby
declare and confirm as under:-
1. That property No. 11/65 New Rohtak Road, New
Delhi-5 stands registered in my name and that of my
elder brother, Shri Guru Sarup Vohra vide registration
No. dt.
2. That the above property has been purchased by our
father Shri Ram Sarup Vohra out of his own earnings
and savings.
CS(OS) 191/2023 Page 3 of 14
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/02/2026 at 20:37:16
3. That we are eleven brother and one sister, out of
which four brothers and a sister are minors.
4. That our father, Shri Ram Sarup Vohra has given us
charge of the property to safe-guard the interest of the
same and also we being elders are supposed to protect
the interest of younger brothers and sister.
5. That I, Anand Sarup Vohra also on behalf of my
elder brother Shri Guru Sarup Vohra do hereby
undertake to honour the wishes of my father Shri Ram
Sarup Vohra, under every testing circumstance.
Accordingly we will dispose of the property under
reference in the manner agreed upon to by all the
members of family of Shri Ram Sarup Vohra at any
time mutually decided to do so.
6. That by virtue of duties entrusted to us in respect of
our father’s above property we do not become the sole
owners but are the custodians of the property under
reference.”
9. Based on these averments and stating the details of the children who
passed away and the grand children who are entitled to the shares in the Suit
Property, the instant Suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs with the following
reliefs:-
“A. Pass a preliminary decree of partition of Ram
Sarup & Sons (HUF) declaring the Plaintiffs to
collectively have 1/5th share in the Suit Property, i.e.
65/11, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi-110005
(with Plaintiffs No.1 to 5 collectively having 1/10th
share and PlaintiffNo.6 having 1/10th share);
B. Pass a final decree of partition dividing the Suit
Property i.e. 65/11, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh,CS(OS) 191/2023 Page 4 of 14
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/02/2026 at 20:37:16
Delhi-110005 by metes and bounds or/alternatively
directing the sale of the same and division of the
proceeds;
C. Pass a decree of permanent and prohibitory
injunction restraining the Defendants and or his
agents/successors/assigns or any other person acting
on his behalf from transferring, alienating, selling
and/or creating any third party interest whatsoever or
parting with possession of the Suit Property, i.e. 65/11,
New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi-11 0005;
D. Pass a decree of damages/occupational charges in
favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants
directing the Defendants to jointly pay a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs only) per month from
the date of filing of the present suit till the actual
partition of the Suit Property;
E. Award the costs of the Suit to the Plaintiffs;
F. Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of this case.”
10. The present Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC has been
filed by the Defendant No. 1 primarily on the ground that the propounded
documents are not sufficient to base the claim of formation and the existence
of the HUF. The Application states that the purported Declarations were not
filed before the statutory authorities and there are no bank accounts, no tax
returns and no property tax which has been paid to indicate the existence of
an HUF.
11. It is stated that there was a tenant in the Suit Property and extensive
litigations by the tenant were contested by Late Guru Swarup Vohra and
CS(OS) 191/2023 Page 5 of 14
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/02/2026 at 20:37:16
Late Anand Swarup Vohra, i.e., two sons in whose names the Suit Property
has been purchased. The present Application, therefore, has been filed by
Defendant No.1 stating that the Plaintiff has filed the Plaint without
disclosing the proper cause of action.
12. Learned Senior Counsel for Defendant No.1 contends that the facts
stated in the Plaint as well as the documents propounded by the Plaintiff, are
not sufficient to base the claim of formulation and existence of HUF. In such
absence of foundational facts, the claim for partition of the Suit Property,
which has been purchased in the name of the predecessor-in-interest of
Defendant Nos.1 to 9, is not made out. Learned Senior Counsel for the
Defendant No. 1 therefore, states that the Plaint deserves to be rejected for
not disclosing any cause of action.
13. Learned Senior Counsel for Defendant No.1 places reliance on a
judgment of the Apex Court in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes &
Ors.v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira, 2012 (5) SCC 370, highlighting the
importance of pleadings and stating that unless there are proper pleadings, a
suit cannot be permitted to continue. The portions of the said judgment on
which reliance has been placed reads as under:-
“53. Pleadings are the foundation of litigation. In
pleadings, only the necessary and relevant material
must be included and unnecessary and irrelevant
material must be excluded. Pleadings are given utmost
importance in similar systems of adjudication, such as,
the United Kingdom and the United States of America.
xxx
61. In civil cases, pleadings are extremely important
for ascertaining the title and possession of the propertyCS(OS) 191/2023 Page 6 of 14
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/02/2026 at 20:37:16
in question.
xxx
71. Apart from these pleadings, the court must insist on
documentary proof in support of the pleadings. All
those documents would be relevant which come into
existence after the transfer of title or possession or the
encumbrance as is claimed. While dealing with the
civil suits, at the threshold, the court must carefully
and critically examine the pleadings and documents.
72. The court will examine the pleadings for specificity
as also the supporting material for sufficiency and then
pass appropriate orders.
75. In pleadings, whenever a person claims right to
continue in possession of another property, it becomes
necessary for him to plead with specificity about who
was the owner, on what date did he enter into
possession, in what capacity and in what manner did
he conduct his relationship with the owner over the
years till the date of suit. He must also give details on
what basis he is claiming a right to continue in
possession. Until the pleadings raise a sufficient case,
they will not constitute sufficient claim of defence.
xxx
77. The court must ensure that pleadings of a case
must contain sufficient particulars. Insistence on
details reduces the ability to put forward a non-existent
or false claim or defence. In dealing with a civil case,
pleadings, title documents and relevant records play a
vital role and that would ordinarily decide the fate of
the case.”
14. Learned Senior Counsel for the Defendant No. 1 further contends that
CS(OS) 191/2023 Page 7 of 14
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/02/2026 at 20:37:16
the averments in the Plaint and the documents filed along with the plaint do
not raise to the level of pleadings required under law.
15. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs contends that all the
material averments which are required to maintain a suit for partition have
been made in the Plaint. He argues that the documents, and more
particularly the Declaration of Late Ram Sarup Vohra, clearly indicate the
existence of an HUF. One of the children of Late Ram Sarup Vohra, i.e.,
Late Anand Swarup Vohra in whose name the Suit Property was purchased,
also issued a Declaration to state that the Suit Property was purchased by
Late Ram Sarup Vohra.
16. In order to object to the averments of the Defendant No. 1, learned
Counsel for the Plaintiffs places reliance on Paragraph 5 of the Plaint. He
further draws the attention of this Court to Paragraph 9 of the Plaint wherein
the Declaration of Late Ram Sarup Vohra has been quoted. Attention of this
Court has also been drawn to Paragraph 10 of the Plaint, which is the
Declaration given by Late Anand Swarup Vohra, in whose name the Suit
Property was purchased.
17. Attention of this Court has also been drawn to Paragraphs 14 to 17 of
the Plaint, to show the existence of a joint HUF property, which read as
under:-
“14. That even after the death of the patriarch Mr.Ram
Sarup Vohra and his wife Mrs.Gomti Devi Vohra, the
affairs of the family remained joint. All the
coparceners used to contribute towards the
maintenance of the Suit Property subject to their
means. The efforts were coordinated by the Plaintiff
No.1. For instance, the school fees of Ms.Radhika Jain
@Tina was borne by the Plaintiff No.1 as her fatherCS(OS) 191/2023 Page 8 of 14
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/02/2026 at 20:37:16
Mr.Guru Swamp Vohra had been suspended and did
not receive his full pay. Copy of the record foil of the
cheque book of the Plaintiff No.1 is being placed on
record showing payments of Tina @ Ms.Radhika Jain.
The brothers also used to regularly contribute towards
the maintenance of the Suit Property. To this end, the
brothers used to deposit money by cheques or
otherwise in the joint bank account of Mr.Guru Swarup
Vohra and Mr.Anand Swarup Vohra with Bank of
Maharashtra. Few Encashment Certificates are being
placed on record.
15. That Mr.Anand Swarup Vohra passed away on
22.01.2005; while Mr.Guru Swarup Vohra passed
away on 05.12.2004.
16. That as on date, only the Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are
residing in the Suit Property on the First Floor
occupying the Drawing Room, 2 bedrooms, kitchen, 2
bathroom and latrine as well as some portion of the
terrace. The remaining portions of the Suit Property
are under common control. However, all brothers and.
their families come and stay in the Suit Property as per
their wishes or when they are in Delhi. The Suit
Property remains in the joint possession of all the
coparceners/members. Copy of the Site Plan of the Suit
Property is being placed on record.
17. That the gas connection is in the name of the
Plaintiff No.2/Mrs.Rama Vohra. Copy of gas bill is
being placed on record. The landline connection
(ending with 4713) was originally in the name of the
patriarch Mr.Ram Sarup Vohra since 1960s. It was
later transferred to the name of Mr.Sushil Kumar
Vohra after the death of the patriarch. Later, when
Mr.Sushil Kumar Vohra shifted to Bahrain, it was
changed to the name of PlaintiffNo.1/Mr.Anil Kumar
Vohra and stands so as on date. Copy of telephoneCS(OS) 191/2023 Page 9 of 14
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/02/2026 at 20:37:16
bills are being placed on record. Copy of the Letter
dated 10.09.1992 written by Mr.Guru Swarup Vohra is
being placed on record. Copy of the Letter dated
21.11.1994 written by Mr.Anand Swarup is being
placed on record.”
18. The law regarding rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the
CPC has been crystallized by the Apex Court in a catena of Judgments. The
Apex Court in Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association v. Sri
Bala & Co., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 48, has observed as under:-
“6.1. …
(i) In T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC
467, this Court while examining the aforesaid
provision has held that the trial court must remember
that if on a meaningful and not a formal reading of the
plaint it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the
sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, it should
exercise the power under Order VII Rule 11 of the
Code taking care to see that the ground mentioned
therein is fulfilled. If clever drafting has created the
illusion of a cause of action, it has to be nipped in the
bud at the first hearing by examining the party
searchingly under Order X of the Code, as observed by
Krishna Iyer, J.
(ii) The object of the said provision was laid down by
this Court in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity
Commissioner, (2004) 3 SCC 137. Similarly, in Popat
and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff
Association, (2005) 7 SCC 510, this Court has culled
out the legal ambit of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.
(iii) It is trite law that not any particular plea has to be
considered, but the whole plaint has to be read. As wasCS(OS) 191/2023 Page 10 of 14
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/02/2026 at 20:37:16
observed by this Court in Roop Lal Sathi v. Nachhattar
Singh Gill, (1982) 3 SCC 487, only a part of the plaint
cannot be rejected and if no cause of action is
disclosed, the plaint as a whole must be rejected.
Similarly, in Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh
Property, (1998) 7 SCC 184, it was observed that the
averments in the plaint as a whole have to be seen to
find out whether clause (d) of Rule 11 Order VII of the
Code is applicable.
(iv) It was further held with reference to Order VII
Rule 11 of the Code in Saleem Bhai v. State of
Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557 that the relevant facts
which need to be looked into for deciding an
application thereunder are the averments in the plaint.
The trial court can exercise the power at any stage of
the suit i.e. before registering the plaint or after issuing
summons to the defendant at any time before the
conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an
application under clauses (a) and (d) of Order VII Rule
11 of the Code, the averments in the plaint are
germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the
written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that
stage.
(v) In R.K. Roja v. U.S. Rayudu, (2016) 14 SCC 275, it
was reiterated that the only restriction is that the
consideration of the application for rejection should
not be on the basis of the allegations made by the
defendant in his written statement or on the basis of the
allegations in the application for rejection of the
plaint. The court has to consider only the plaint as a
whole, and in case the entire plaint comes under the
situations covered by Order VII Rules 11(a) to (f) of
the Code, the same has to be rejected.
(vi) In Kuldeep Singh Pathania v. Bikram Singh Jaryal,
(2017) 5 SCC 345, this Court observed that the court
CS(OS) 191/2023 Page 11 of 14
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/02/2026 at 20:37:16
can only see whether the plaint, or rather the pleadings
of the plaintiff, constitute a cause of action. Pleadings
in the sense where, even after the stage of written
statement, if there is a replication filed, in a given
situation the same also can be looked into to see
whether there is any admission on the part of the
plaintiff. In other words, under Order VII Rule 11, the
court has to take a decision looking at the pleadings of
the plaintiff only and not on the rebuttal made by the
defendant or any other materials produced by the
defendant.
(vii) In an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the
Code, a plaint cannot be rejected in part. This
principle is well established and has been continuously
followed since the 1936 decision in Maqsud Ahmad v.
Mathra Datt & Co. AIR 1936 Lah 1021. This principle
is also explained in another decision of this Court in
Sejal Glass Ltd. v. Navilan Merchants Private Ltd.,
(2018) 11 SCC 780 which was again followed in
Madhav Prasad Aggarwal v. Axis Bank Ltd., (2019) 7
SCC 158.
(viii) In Biswanath Banik v. Sulanga Bose, (2022) 7
SCC 731, this Court discussed the issue whether the
suit can be said to be barred by limitation or not, and
observed that at this stage, what is required to be
considered is the averments in the plaint. Only in a
case where on the face of it, it is seen that the suit is
barred by limitation, then and then only a plaint can be
rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code on the
ground of limitation. At this stage what is required to
be considered is the averments in the plaint. For the
aforesaid purpose, the Court has to consider and read
the averments in the plaint as a whole.”
19. Applying the said law to the facts of the present case, it is evident that
Late Ram Sarup Vohra has himself made a Declaration dated 30.03.1958,
CS(OS) 191/2023 Page 12 of 14
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/02/2026 at 20:37:16
which has been annexed as Document No.4 to the Plaint, which indicates
that the Suit Property was purchased by Ram Sarup Vohra & Sons (HUF)
for the benefit of the family, which itself indicates the existence of an HUF
property. The effect of not filing tax returns etc. and whether that takes away
the entire case of the Plaintiffs, will be a matter to be decided after the
evidence is adduced at the time of the trial.
20. It is well settled that Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is an extraordinary
remedy wherein the Court is only concerned with the averments made in the
Plaint as well as the documents filed along with the Plaint. The evidentiary
value of the documents cannot be gone into under Order VII Rule 11 of the
CPC. In this view of the matter, the Judgment passed by the Apex Court in
Maria (supra), which is anyway not a judgment on Order VII Rule 11 of the
CPC, is immaterial at this juncture.
21. This Court is also of the considered view that the fact that eviction
proceedings were contested only by two persons in whose name the Suit
Property was purchased, and these two persons only are shown as owners of
the Suit Property is also of no consequence, because it does not imply that
there is no existence of an HUF property, as declared by Late Ram Sarup
Vohra himself in his Declaration dated 30.03.1958. These facts also do not
bind the Plaintiffs herein or stop them from claiming the existence of the
HUF property being purchased by Late Ram Sarup Vohra by using his own
funds making the Suit Property as an HUF property.
22. Admittedly, even in the plaint, since the Suit Property stands in the
name of these two persons, i.e., Late Guru Swarup Vohra and Late Anand
Swarup Vohra, the same is not hit by the Prohibition of Benami Property
Transactions Act, 1988, for the reason that the Suit Property was purchased
CS(OS) 191/2023 Page 13 of 14
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/02/2026 at 20:37:16
by the father in the name of his sons. Resultantly, the exception carved out
in Section 2(9)(iv) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act,
1988 would be applicable in the present case.
23. With these observations, the Application is dismissed.
I.A. 5505/2023
1. Learned Senior Counsel for Defendant No.1 states that Defendants
No. 3, 18, 19, 25 & 40 are minors and their parents have yet not responded
and, therefore, it would be on the Plaintiffs to move an appropriate
application under Rule 3(c) of Chapter XV of the Delhi High Court
(Original Side) Rules, 2018.
2. List before the learned Joint Registrar on 10.04.2026.
I.A. 20007/2023
List before the learned Joint Registrar on 10.04.2026 to decide the
present Application filed by Defendant No.1 seeking condonation of delay
in filing the written statement.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
FEBRUARY 02, 2026
hsk
CS(OS) 191/2023 Page 14 of 14
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/02/2026 at 20:37:16