
Quick Summary: The Delhi High Court, led by Justice Avneesh Jhingan, decided on January 28, 2026, that the request to partially dismiss a case involving a family argument over a will cannot move forward. The case involves a property disagreement among the Trakru family, with the main issue being how to understand a joint will.
In this case, the family members Kanak Trakru and Anmol Trakru filed a lawsuit seeking to split a property based on a will dated March 1, 2017. The property originally belonged to their grandfather, Avtar Krishen Trakru, and his wife, Raj Dulari Trakru. The plaintiffs are the children of Lalit Trakru, one of the people mentioned to benefit from the will.
The will was made by Avtar Krishen Trakru and Raj Dulari Trakru. It said that the spouse who lived longer would have full control over the property until both of them passed away. The plaintiffs argued that they should get a share based on this will.
"In our wisdom, till either of us i.e., A.K. Trakru or Raj Dulari Trakru is alive, either of us shall be possessed of all our assets and properties mentioned in the Will as absolute owner..."
The main argument was whether the will made the property solely belong to Raj Dulari Trakru after Avtar's death. The other family members, including Renu Trakru Singla and others, argued that the will did not create a family-owned property and that the grandchildren could not claim a share while their father was still alive.
Justice Avneesh Jhingan decided that the request to dismiss part of the case could not be accepted. The court stated that the issue needed a full trial to understand the will and its effects.
"The effect of the joint Will as to whether the suit property became the self-acquired property... would require a decision on complicated questions of law and fact and cannot be decided on an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC."
The court rejected the request for partial dismissal, meaning the case will go to trial. The legal process to prove the will is also still ongoing, which could influence the final decision.
This decision shows the complexities of family property arguments and the need for a detailed legal review in such cases.