The Delhi High Court has refused to throw out a partition suit filed by a 79-year-old woman over a prime property on Kasturba Gandhi Marg, holding that her claim raises serious legal issues that must be tested at trial rather than dismissed at the threshold. The ruling examines how women’s property rights under the Hindu Succession Act interact with family arrangements made decades ago.
Background of the Case
The suit concerns property bearing No. 6, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. It originally belonged to R.B. Sardar Bishan Singh. In February 1956, he executed a gift deed in favour of his two surviving sons and his granddaughter the daughter of his predeceased son.
While the sons received full ownership, the granddaughter was given only a life interest. After many years, she approached the court seeking partition, claiming that her limited interest had expanded into absolute ownership under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Read also:- Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Advocate Accused of Seeking ₹30 Lakh to Influence Divorce Case
One of the defendants challenged the suit by filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, arguing that the plaint disclosed no cause of action and was barred by limitation.
The defendants contended that the gift deed clearly restricted the plaintiff’s rights to a life estate and that Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act protected such restrictions. They also argued that the suit was defective because the plaintiff had not sought a separate declaration of title and that any such claim was time-barred.
The plaintiff, on the other hand, argued that she had a pre-existing right of maintenance as the unmarried minor daughter of a predeceased son. According to her, the life estate given in 1956 was in recognition of this right and therefore matured into absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the Act. She also maintained that her rights were denied only in 2024, giving rise to a fresh cause of action.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Quashes Dowry Harassment Case, Cites Duplicate FIRs and Lack of Evidence
Court’s Observations
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav undertook a detailed analysis of classical Hindu law principles and modern statutory provisions. The court noted that Hindu law traditionally imposes a duty to maintain vulnerable female family members, including the unmarried daughter of a predeceased son.
“The question at this stage,” the court observed, “is not whether the plaintiff will ultimately succeed, but whether her claim is so baseless that it must be rejected at the outset.”
The judge held that a moral obligation to maintain a dependent woman can, in certain circumstances, ripen into a legal obligation in the hands of those who inherit or receive family property. Such an obligation, the court said, may create a pre-existing right capable of attracting Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.
Rejecting the limitation argument, the court clarified that the right to seek a declaration arises when the title is first denied, not when the statute came into force. Since the plaintiff claimed denial only in 2024, the suit could not be rejected as time-barred at this stage.
The court also held that the absence of a separate prayer for declaration was not a ground to reject the plaint. Procedural defects, it said, can be cured by amendment and do not amount to a legal bar.
Decision
Dismissing the application to reject the plaint, the Delhi High Court allowed the partition suit to proceed. The court directed the plaintiff to pay appropriate court fees for the declaratory relief and clarified that all observations were limited to the preliminary stage and would not affect the final outcome of the trial.
Case Title: Mrs. Ajit Inder Singh v. Simranjit Singh Grewal & Ors.
Case Number: CS(OS) 1022/2024
Date of Judgment: 30 January 2026
