HARPREET SINGH SAINI Vs. KULVINDER SINGH SAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the son of defendant No.1. Defendants No. 2 and 3 are the sister and brother respectively of the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is that property bearing No. RZ 606/21, Tuglakabad Extension, New Delhi was purchased by his grandfather, i.e., father of defendant No.1 with his own money in the name of defendant No.1. The plaintiff is seeking partition of the aforesaid property on the averment that on the death of his grandfather this property became ancestral property in the hands of plaintiff and the defendants who have 1/4 th share each in the same.

(2.) THE following are the relevant averments in the plaint, with respect to the claim of the plaintiff in the suit property:

(3.) IT is settled proposition of law that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of plaint, the Court can take into consideration only the averments made in the plaint and the documents filed by the plaintiff. Neither the defence taken in the written statement nor the documents filed by the defendant can be looked into at this stage. It is also a settled proposition of law that the truthfulness or otherwise of the averments cannot be examined while considering such an application.