(1.) The present application has been filed by the defendants No.11 and 12 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, praying inter alia for rejection of the accompanying suit instituted by the plaintiff for declaration, partition, possession and permanent injunction in respect of property bearing municipal No.1112, Chatta Madan, Gopal Maliwara, Chandani Chowk, Delhi, or in the alternative, for recovery of Rs. 50 lacs alongwith interest, on the ground that the plaintiff does not have a legal right to institute the said suit during the lifetime of his father, i.e., defendant No.1 and that he is not entitled to challenge the sale of the suit property by the defendants No.1 to 9 in favour of the defendants No.11 and 12.
(2.) The plaintiff has filed the accompanying suit on the allegation that the suit premises was originally owned by late Shri Laxmi Narain Johri, who had three sons, i.e., Shri K.K. Johri, Shri P.P. Johri and Shri Baldev Prasad Johri. The plaintiff is the great grandson of late Shri Laxmi Narain Johri, who had expired on 27.08.1972, the grandson of late Shri K.K. Johri, who had expired on 29.10.1985 and the son of Mr. Deepak Johri, defendant No.1 herein. As per the averments made in the plaint, defendant No.1 had inherited 1/3 rd undivided share in the suit property, defendants No.2 to 6 had jointly inherited 1/3 rd undivided share of late Shri P.P. Johri and defendants No.7 to 9 had jointly inherited the remaining 1/3 rd share, being the legal heirs of late Shri Baldev Prasad Johri. Shri K.K. Johri had two sons, namely, Shri Deepak Johri, defendant No.1 and late Shri Rupak Johri, who was issueless and had expired intestate. Defendant No.1 had got married to defendant No.10 and out of the wedlock, the plaintiff herein was born on 02.11.1981. Later on, defendants No.1 and 10 parted ways after obtaining a decree of divorce by mutual consent on 27.09.2010.
(3.) The plaintiff claims half of his father's 1/3 rd share in the suit property on the ground that the said property was an ancestral property in the hands of his father. The averments that are relevant for deciding the present application have been made in paras 8 and 9 of the plaint. The applicants herein, i.e., defendants No.11 and 12 have purchased the suit property from the defendants No.1 to 9 by virtue of a Sale Deed dated 02.07.2010. Apart from a preliminary objection raised by the defendants No.11 and 12 on the same lines as in their written statement, this application has been filed by them stating inter alia that the suit property was not an HUF property in the hands of the defendant No.1, and on the demise of his father on 29.10.1985, he had inherited the same in his individual capacity and not as a Karta of an HUF.