2025 INSC 632 SLP (C) No. 3756 of 2023 Page 1 of 28

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6389 OF 2025

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3756 of 2023)

SAROJ SALKAN …APPELLANT

VERSUS

HUMA SINGH & ORS. ….RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

MANMOHAN, J

1. Leave granted.

2. The present Appeal has been filed challenging the impugned judgment and

final order dated 15

th

November, 2022 passed by the High Court of Delhi in RFA

(OS) No. 51/2016, whereby the Division Bench dismissed the appeal and upheld

the Decree dated 5

th

May, 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in CS(OS)

No. 683/2007 dismissing the partition suit under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC’) with liberty to approach the competent C ourt at

Sonepat, Haryana for partition of land situated in Barota.

3. The subject suit was filed by the Appellant- plaintiff under Section 6 of the

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 for partition, injunction and accounts involving five

properties held by the Appellant-plaintiff’s father – Late Major General Budh

Singh against the legal heirs of Anup Singh i.e. brother of Appellant- plaintiff and

her sister, Respondent No.6, who is supporting the case of the Appellant- plaintiff.

SLP (C) No. 3756 of 2023 Page 2 of 28

The five properties that were made the subject matter of the suit for partition

were:-

(a) Barota Land (72 acres approx. with farmhouse )

(b) Agriculture land – 11 acres at Kalupur, Sonepat

(c) 8 Bigha of Dairy Plot at Sonepat

(d) Bhatgaon Land (30 acres of houses, outhouses and orchard)

(e) C-38, Anand Niketan, New Delhi.

4. The pedigree table of the family, for quick reference is as under:

Major General Budh Singh (died on 08.11.1988)

Son (Anup Singh) Daughter (Saroj Salkan) Daughter (Sharda Hooda)

(died on 18.08.1989) [Appellant-Plaintiff] [R-6]

Wife Son Son Daughter Daughter Daughter

(Sneh Lata) (Sanjeev Singh) (Rajeev Singh) (Renu Singh) (Madhu Eggbert ) (Anju Singh)

Died in (died) [R-2] [R-3] [R-4] [R-5]

June 2004

Wife

(Uma Singh)

[R-1]

SLP (C) No. 3756 of 2023 Page 3 of 28

5. After completion of pleadings when the partition suit was listed for framing

of issues, the learned Single Judge passed a decree of dismissal of the suit

observing ‘as per admitted pleadings and documents no cause of action arises,

no issues are required to be framed and accordingly I exercise my powers under

Order XII Rule 6 CPC to pass a decree; decree includes dismissal of a suit…’.

The relevant portion of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is

reproduced hereinbelow:-

“11. Accordingly, the following conclusions can be derived on the basis

of the pleadings and the admitted documents on record:—

(i) In the subject suit for partition, and properties whereof are stated in

para 2 of the plaint, as regards the properties stated in para 2(b) and

2(c), no details of these properties have been provided as required by

Order VII Rule 1, Order VII Rule 3 read with Order VI Rule 4 CPC, and

hence the suit plaint is not maintainable for seeking partition of these

properties which are alleged to exist, but which really do not exist. This

aspect is to be taken note of with the fact that no documents whatsoever

have been filed by the plaintiff (assuming such documents form part of

the pleadings) which will give the municipal number or the revenue

numbers or the areas of these properties. Suit is therefore liable to be

and is accordingly dismissed for properties stated in para 2(b) and 2(c)

of the plaint being the properties situated at Kalupur and dairy plot at

Sonepat in Haryana.

(ii) The plaint and the replication as they stand allege existence of HUF

and its properties on account of late Gen. Budh Singh having acquired

ancestral properties but not only no details are pleaded/given of which

are the specific ancestral properties which are acquired by late Gen.

Budh Singh, and also it is further not pleaded as to which of these

specific properties were inherited by late Gen. Budh Singh prior to 1956.

Once there do not exist averments of inheritance of specific properties

by Gen. Budh Singh prior to 1956, no HUF of these properties can be

said to exist of having come into existence prior to 1956.

(iii) The only other way thereafter that HUF and its properties could

exist is if Gen. Budh Singh who inherited ancestral properties had

thrown the properties into a common hotchpotch, but that too is not the

case as set out in the plaint of HUF and its properties being created on

account of late Gen. Budh Singh throwing the property or properties into

common hotchpotch.

SLP (C) No. 3756 of 2023 Page 4 of 28

(iv) Challenge by the plaintiff to the Judgment and Decree dated

8.3.1977 passed in suit no. 66/1977 on the ground that this decree is

collusive and not binding is liable to fail by virtue of Article 59 of the

Limitation Act, 1963 inasmuch as challenge in the year 2007 to a

judgment and decree passed 30 years back on 8.3.1977 is hopelessly

barred by limitation.

(v) So far as the property at C-38, Anand Niketan is concerned, once title

deeds of this property are admittedly in the name of late Sh. Anup Singh

(and who is now represented by his legal heirs, defendant nos. 1 to 5),

the suit is barred by Section 4(1) of the Benami Act read with the fact

that no sufficient pleadings exist for existence of HUF and its properties

and of the property at C-38, being an HUF property.

(vi) So far as the land situated at Barota, Sonepat is concerned and with

respect to which the case of the defendant is that late Gen. Budh Singh

died leaving behind his Will dated 3.11.1987 and this Will is disputed by

the plaintiff, I need not examine the merits of the matter because the suit

land is situated at Sonepat, Haryana and therefore in view of Section 16

CPC, suit for this land at Barota, Sonepat on the cause of action that

father was the exclusive owner of this property and who died intestate

and hence plaintiff as a legal heir will inherit a share in the properties

of the father will have to be dealt with and decided by the competent

court at Sonepat, Haryana.”

6. The appeal filed by the Appellant- plaintiff was dismissed by the Division

Bench vide judgment and order dated 11

th

October, 2022. The relevant portion of

judgment and order passed by the Division Bench is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“16. Barring aforesaid, learned counsel for appellant has neither pleaded nor

advanced any arguments nor thrown any light over the legal position nor cited

any case laws regarding any of the issues/grounds, especially the relevant

quoted provisions of the Code and the Limitation Act, recourse whereto form

the very basis of dismissal of suit of appellant by the learned Single Judge

under Order XII rule 6 of the Code vide the impugned judgment. In support of

her contentions, though learned counsel for appellant has relied upon more

than 30 judgments with respect to the law expounded qua HUF, ancestral

property, coparcenary, joint family property, so on and so forth but we are

afraid the learned counsel for appellant has failed to draw our attention or

cite any law regarding the two fundamental issues of pleadings and limitation

for maintainability of the present appeal. Appellant, thus failing to cross over

the main obstacles is unable to counter the basic essence of the impugned

judgment…”

SLP (C) No. 3756 of 2023 Page 5 of 28

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT-PLAINTIFF

7. Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel for the Appellant-plaintiff

submitted that the impugned judgment dated 05

th

May 2016 was untenable in law,

inasmuch as, the learned Single Judge had dismissed the partition suit under

Order XII Rule 6 CPC. He submitted that the plaint could have been rejected and

the suit dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC alone. He further submitted that

the learned Single Judge could not have dismissed the suit under Order XII Rule

6 CPC and that too on its own motion without an application being filed by the

Respondents. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgment of this

Court in Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. V. United Bank of India 2000 (7) SCC

120 and Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil vs. K. Madan Mohan Rao 2023 SCC

OnLine SC 871. The relevant portion of the judgment in Uttam Singh Duggal &

Co. Ltd. (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“As to the object of Order 12 Rule 6, we need not say anything more

than what the legislature itself has said when the saif provision came to

be amended. In the Objects and Reasons set out while amending the said

Rule, it is stated that “where a claim is admitted, the court has

jurisdiction to enter a judgment for the plaintiff and to pass a decree on

admitted claim. The object of the Rule is to enable the party to obtain a

speedy judgment at least to the extent of the relief to which according to

the admission of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled”. We should not

unduly narrow down the meaning of this Rule as the object is to enable

a party to obtain speedy judgment. Where the other party has made a

plain admission entitling the former to succeed, it should apply and also

wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which it is

impossible for the party making such admission to succeed.”

8. He submitted that the learned Single Judge had committed a serious error

in holding that a reading of the plaint did not show creation and existence of a

Hindu Undivided Family (‘HUF’) of Late Major General Budh Singh prior to

1956. He emphasised that the plaint clearly disclosed that the properties were

ancestral in nature and were owned by the HUF of Late Major General Budh

Singh. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgments passed in four

SLP (C) No. 3756 of 2023 Page 6 of 28

Suits filed among some of the parties at different points of time with respect to

the five properties that were the subject matter of the present partition suit.

9. He stated that the suit for declaration being Suit No. 671/1 of 1972

(hereinafter referred to as “Suit I”) filed by the present Appellant along with her

sister (Respondent No.6) and minor sons of their brother Anup Singh on 25

th

March, 1972 proceeded on the basis that the Barota and Bhatgaon lands were

HUF properties. He stated that the Trial Court decreed that suit because Major

General Budh Singh (Late father of Appellant-plaintiff, Respondent No.6 and

Anup Singh himself) appeared and filed a written statement and so did Anup

Singh accepting the claim of the plaintiffs therein. He emphasised that the Trial

Court decreed Suit I on 06

th

April, 1972 declaring plaintiffs No. 1 to 4 to be

owners in possession of the Barota land detailed against their name in para no.4

of the plaint and holding that Late Major General Budh Singh (defendant therein)

has no right, title or interest in the same.

10. Mr. Dave, learned senior counsel, stated that subsequently , a second suit

being Suit No. 66/1977 (hereinafter referred to as “Suit II”) was filed by Late

Major General Budh Singh against his daughters alone i.e. Appellant-plaintiff and

Respondent No.6 claiming Barota lands decreed in favour of his daughters to be

his personal property, fearing that the lands may be declared excess land under

the Haryana Land Ceiling Act. He pointed out that Suit II was predicated on the

premise that the decree passed in Suit I was declared a nullity qua Appellant-

plaintiff and Respondent no. 6 herein by Collector Surplus.

11. He stated that the present Appellant-plaintiff and sister-Respondent No.6

filed a written statement in Suit II categorically averring that “Though the

defendants got a decree in their favour in the year 1970 regarding the land

detailed in para No.1 of the plaint but no right or title was recognised or admitted

by the our/us authorities and the plaintiff continued to be owner in possession of

the said land and as such the decree of the Sub Judge Sonipat dated 7.4.72 was

SLP (C) No. 3756 of 2023 Page 7 of 28

declared a nullity in the eyes of law and could not be accepted upon. The plaintiff

continued to be owner in possession of the said land.”

12. He stated that the Trial Court passed a consensual decree in the said suit on

08

th

March, 1977 declaring the decree dated 04

th

March, 1972 passed in Suit I as

a nullity. He submitted that since Suit II had been decreed, therefore, the partition

claimed under the Suit I did not, in any event, survive.

13. He emphasised that a third suit being Suit No. 219/1978 (hereinafter

referred to as “Suit III ”) was filed by Anup Singh against his own father

categorically averring that Barota and Bhatgaon properties were ancestral

properties and that the sisters on account of having been married had no interest

or title in the ancestral properties and were no longer members of the HUF. The

said suit was decreed on admission on 6

th

October, 1978.

14. He lastly stated that sons of Anup Singh filed a suit for declaration being

Suit No. 622/1984 (hereinafter referred to as “Suit IV ”) against Mr. Anup Singh

their own father with regard to Anand Niketan house. He stated that this suit was

also decreed on admission of defendant therein on 03

rd

January, 1985.

15. Mr. Dave submitted that with these documents on record the learned Single

Judge could not have dismissed the suit for lack of particulars and the Division

Bench could not have dismissed the Appeal on the ground that the said decrees

were not challenged, completely overlooking that the sisters, Appellant-plaintiff

and Respondent No.6, were young at that point of time and were under the

influence of the powerful personality of their late father and therefore agreed to

sign papers as directed. According to him, it is a matter of common knowledge

that daughters in most Hindu families have little or no say whatsoever. He

contended that, be as it may, the existence of HUF stood proved in the said

proceedings. He emphasised that the decrees against the sisters were clearly sham

decrees only to override the provisions of the Ceiling Laws as the plaint in Suit

II clearly averred that the Collector Surplus did not accept the decree passed in

Suit I.

SLP (C) No. 3756 of 2023 Page 8 of 28

16. Lastly, Mr. Dave, learned senior counsel, submitted that the impugned

judgments frustrate and negate the statutory amendment brought about by

Parliament in the Hindu Succession Act 1956, by substituting Section 6 with

effect from 09

th

September, 2005. He submitted that the learned Single Judge and

Division Bench failed to appreciate that the amended Section 6 had retroactive

application. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgment of this

Court in Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma and Ors. (2020) 9 SCC 1, wherein

it has been held as under:-

“54. ... The goal of gender justice as constitutionally envisaged is

achieved though belatedly, and the discrimination made is taken care of

by substituting the provisions of Section 6 by the 2005 Amendment Act.

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

60. … Though the rights can be claimed, w.e.f. 9- 9-2005, the

provisions are of retroactive application; they confer benefits based

on the antecedent event, and the Mitakshara coparcenary law shall

be deemed to include a reference to a daughter as a coparcener….

61. ... Under the amended Section 6, since the right is given by birth,

that is, an antecedent event, and the provisions operate concerning

claiming rights on and from the date of the Amendment Act.

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

67. The proviso to Section 6(1) and Section 6(5) saves any partition

effected before 20-12-2004. However, Explanation to Section 6(5)

recognises partition effected by execution of a deed of partition duly

registered under the Registration Act, 1908 or by a decree of a court.

Other forms of partition have not been recognised under the

definition of “partition” in the Explanation.

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

135. A special definition of partition has been carved out in the

Explanation. The intendment of the provisions is not to jeopardise the

interest of the daughter and to take care of sham or frivolous

transaction set up in defence unjustly to deprive the daughter of her

right as coparcener and prevent nullifying the benefit flowing from

SLP (C) No. 3756 of 2023 Page 9 of 28

the provisions as substituted….The intendment of Section 6 of the Act

is only to accept the genuine partitions that might have taken place

under the prevailing law, and are not set up as a false defence and

only oral ipse dixit is to be rejected outrightly….”

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF OTHER SISTER, RESPONDENT NO.6

17. Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of sister-

Respondent No.6, stated that in view of the admission in Suit IV filed by Shri

Sanjiv Singh and Shri Rajiv Singh against Anup Singh that ‘joint family owned

ancestral/co-parcenary family properties both in Village Bhatgaon and Village

Akbarpur Barota’, the contention of the Respondents that Barota land was a grant

in favour of Late Major General Budh Singh and therefore it wa s his self-acquired

property was misplaced. He submitted that once there wa s an admission by the

opposite party that the property was co-parcenary, more so, in an earlier suit, the

existence of the property being co-parcenary cannot be disputed in the present

proceedings.

18. He further stated that the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 had admitted in their

written statement (filed in the subject suit) that the Bhatgaon property was

ancestral property of Late Major General Budh Singh and that he had sold some

land in Bhatgaon and with the sale proceeds had purchased the plot in Anand

Niketan.

19. He also contended that Suit II had been filed by Late Major General Budh

Singh with clear intent to reverse the revenue entries in favour of the Appellant -

plaintiff and Respondent No.6. He emphasised that the alleged admissions with

respect to Late Major General Budh Singh being the owner of the Barota property

were made by the Appellant-plaintiff and Respondent No.6 herein as the decree

dated 07

th

April 1992 (in Suit I) had not been accepted by Collector Surplus and

that the said decree had been declared collusive. He submitted that the Courts

below had failed to appreciate the pleading of Respondent Nos.1 to 5, not only in

SLP (C) No. 3756 of 2023 Page 10 of 28

the earlier proceedings but also in the written statement in the present

proceedings.

20. In any event, he submitted that the Appellant-plaintiff and Respondent

No.6 should have been given an opportunity to explain the alleged admissions in

Suit II during the trial of the present case.

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.2

21. At the outset, Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for the Respondent

No.2 contended that no cause of action had arisen qua properties at Kalupur,

Bhatgaon land and dairy plot at Sonepat, as they do not exist. He pointed out that the plaint did not disclose any details or exact description and area cross

referencing with revenue/municipal records with respect to land at Kalupur and dairy plot at Sonepat.

22. He further stated that the Appellant-plaintiff had given up her claim in

respect of Barota land in the written submissions filed before the Division Bench

and the same had been recorded by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment as under:-

“12. It is to be noted, that based on the pleadings of the parties, finding

no details qua two ancestral properties, being Kalupur land and Dairy

plot, by appellant and denial of the same by respondents, learned Single

Judge vide the impugned Judgment dismissed the suit of the appellant

qua the said two properties in limine, which has not been challenged

before this Court. Similarly, qua the Barota land also, appellant during

the course of arguments and in written submissions submitted as

under:—

“With regard to the plea of the land Barota being agricultural

property and covered by the Punjab Land Revenue Act It is stated

that since the defendant have propounded a will the matter has to be

adjudicated in court the legal consequences of which will bear upon

the said property.”

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

35. It is reiterated that the dismissal of the suit qua the three ancestral

properties being Kalupur land, Dairy plot and Barota land by the

learned Single Judge has not been challenged before this Court, and

SLP (C) No. 3756 of 2023 Page 11 of 28

therefore there is no requirement for us to venture into the same. The suit

of appellant qua the two ancestral properties being Kalupur land and

Dairy plot, stands dismissed in limine vide impugned judgment of the

learned Single Judge and qua the Barota land appellant has been rightly

granted liberty to approach the appropriate forum at Sonepat, Haryana

having appropriate jurisdiction, as in light of Section 16 of the Code,

that the cause of action qua the Barota Land arises there.”

23. He emphasised that the Appellant- plaintiff had herself admitted in her

replication that the Barota land was awarded to Late Major General Budh Singh

as a gallantry award during the second world war. He submitted that it is settled

law that a grant/award is the self-acquired or personal property of the awardee,

which implies that Barota land was self-acquired property of Late Major General

Budh Singh and not an HUF property. In any event, he stated that the Barota land

which was the only property owned by Late Major General Budh Singh devolved

upon his paternal grandsons by way of a registered Will dated 03

rd

November,

1987.

24. He further stated that, admittedly, C-38, Anand Niketan house was

purchased by Late Major General Budh Singh in 1968 and then on a request made

by Late Major General Budh Singh, the same was transferred by the Government

to Anup Singh, by a duly registered perpetual sub-lease deed, way back on 3

rd

April, 1970.

25. Learned senior counsel for the Respondent No.2 laid considerable

emphasis on the pleadings, prayer and judgments passed in the four suits by the

Sonepat Court, the same are reproduced hereinbelow:-

I. a) Parties to the Suit

In the Case No.671/1 of 1972 (Suit I, decreed on 06

th

April, 1972) titled

Sanjiv Singh, Rajiv Singh, Saroj Salkan and Sharda Rani vs. Gen. Budh Singh and Anup Singh, there were four plaintiffs and two defendants.

SLP (C) No. 3756 of 2023 Page 12 of 28

b) Relevant averments in the plaint

2. …Gair mumkin situated in the village Barota Tehsil Sonipat

according Jamabandi for the year 1966- 67 is owned by the defendants

and plaintiff No.1, due to ancestral property the same comes in equal

share and on which the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are having possession

on their share of the said separately as owner under the following

manners and the parties are having no concern with the petition of

another. The copy of the JAMABANDI is annexed.

3. That the land situated at Village Bhatgaon Tehsil SONIPAT was the

property of the parties and the defendant no.2 is having possession on it.

The same comes under the share of defendant No.2 in mutual partition

and the defendant No.2 is an absolute owner and possession of the entire

land situated at Village Bhatgaon. Therefore, the defendant No.2 is having

no concern with the land as mentioned in para No.1 because the plaintiff

and the defendants are entitled to get equal share in the above said

property as mentioned in para No.1 as a legal heirs.

4. That due to the mutual partition the plaintiffs and defendant No.1

are the owner and possessors as under and no concern of one owner to

the share of another owner. Details of the land of plaintiff no.1 to 4 and

the defendant No.1 is as under :-

a) The share of landlord namely Sanjeev Singh i.e. plaintiff No.1 is as

under:-

Khewat No.49, Khata No.67 Musttil and Killa Nos.

7

___________________

21 22 23 24

8-0 8- 0 8- 0 7-1

8 0/1 10

________________________________________

21 0-1 1 2 3 4 5 6/2

7-11 7-0 7-11 7-12 7-6 4- 12

10

_________________

7 8 9 10

7-12 8-0 8-0 8-0 measuring area 114 kanals 19 marla

The share of owner Rajeev Singh Plaintiff No.2 is as under:-

SLP (C) No. 3756 of 2023 Page 13 of 28

Khewat No.19 Khata No.67 Mustatil and Killa Nos.

11

_______________________________________________

6 7 8 13 14 15 16 17 18/1

8-0 8- 0 8- 0 8-0 8- 0 8-0 8-0 8-0 1/11

11 7

_______________________________________________

24 25 11 12 19 20

8-0 8- 0 8- 0 8-0 8- 0 8-0

Measuring 113 Kanals 11 Marla

c) the share of owner Smt. Saroj Salkan plaintiff No.3 is as under:- Khewat

No.49 Khata No.67 Mustail and Killa Nos.

1 3

__________________

23 1 2 3

0-13 5-0 7-7 8- 0

3

_______________________________________________

8 9 10 11 12 13 19/2 20

8-0 8- 0 8- 0 8-0 8- 0 8-0 3-12 8- 0

4

_______________________________________________

5 6 15 16 24 25 6

0-12 2-14 4- 8 7-06 1-8 8- 0 8-0

Measuring area 113 kanals 6 marlas

d) That the share of owner Kumari Sharda Rani plaintiff No.3 is as under:-

Khewat No.49 Khata No.67 Mustatil and Killa Nos.

6

__________________________

4 6 7 8 13

414 8-0 7-12 0-11 3-14

SLP (C) No. 3756 of 2023 Page 14 of 28

6

_________________________________________________________

14 15 16 17 18 23 24 25

8-0 8- 0 8-0 7-9 7-16 8 -0 8-0 8- 0

11

_________________________________________________________

3 4 5

7-11 7-11 7-1

Measuring area 109 Kanals 19 marlas

E) That the share of owner Budh Singh is as under Khwa No.49, Khata

No.67 Mustatil and Killa Nos.

10

_________________________________________________________

11 12 13 14 17/2 18 19

8-0 7- 16 8- 0 8-0 8-0 8- 0 8-0

10

____________________________________________________

20 21 22 23 24

8-0 8- 0 7-16 7-16 0-13

16

____________________________________________________

1 2 3/4 9 10/1

7-11 7-11 4-7 8-12 7-4

Measuring area 119 Kanals 14 Marlas situated in the Village Akbarpur

Barota Tehsil Sonipat.

E) That the share of owner Budh Singh is as under Khwa No.49, Khata

No.67 Mustatil and Killa Nos.

10

_________________________________________________________

11 12 13 14 17/2 18 19

8-0 7- 16 8- 0 8-0 8-0 8- 0 8-0

10

____________________________________________________

SLP (C) No. 3756 of 2023 Page 15 of 28

20 21 22 23 24

8-0 8- 0 7-16 7-16 0-13

16

____________________________________________________

1 2 3/4 9 10/1

7-11 7-11 4-7 8-12 7-4

Measuring area 119 kanals 14 marlas situated in the Village of Akbarpur

Baroa Tehsil Sonipat.

c) Prayer

Measuring 119 kanals 11 marla situated in the Village Akbarpur Barota Tehsil Sonipat is possessed as occupier and declare owner and on this land defendant No.2 have no concerned and defendant No.1 only owner agriculture land as written in para No.4 and the mutation of the parits

about their lands may kindly be mutate in the revenue records. It is also prayed that the costs of the case may also be awarded in favour of the

plaintiffs and against the defendants. Any other or further order which this

Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed. It is prayed

accordingly.

d) Judgment

1. The brief facts of the present suit for declaration are that plaintiffs 1

and 2 are sons of defendant No.2 and defendants 3 and 4 are daughters of

defendant No.1. The defendant No.2 is son of defendant No.1. That land

detailed in para 2 of the plaint was owned by defendant No.1 but it was

ancestral in his hand. As such plaintiffs 1 to 4 had also a share in the same.

That in the year 1971 it was partitioned between plaintiffs 1 to 4 and

defendant No.1 in the manner as detailed in para 4 of the plaint. Plaintiff

No.1 got the land detailed in sub para (k) plaintiff No.2 got the land

detailed in sub para (kha) plaintiff No.3 got the land detailed in para (ghe)

plaintiff No. 4 got the land detailed in sub para (Ghhe). The remaining land

remained with defendant No.1. That defendant No.2 got the land situated

in village Bhatgaon. That parties are in possession of the land which came

to their share since then as owners. That the land detailed in para 5 of the

plaint was kept joint. As defendant started claiming titled the present suit

for declaration was filed.

2. Defendant No.1 appeared through Sh. S.P. Jain Advocate Sonepat

and filed a written statement. Defendant No.2 appeared in person and also

filed a written statement .... the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be decreed.

SLP (C) No. 3756 of 2023 Page 16 of 28

3. For the above reasons I pass a decree declaring plaintiffs 1 to 4 to

be owners in possession of the land detailed against their name in para No.

4 of the plaint. Defendant has no right, title or interest in the same.

4. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

II. a) Parties to the Suit

In the case No.66 of 1977 (Suit II, decreed on 08

th

March, 1977) titled as

Major General Budh Singh vs. Saroj Salkan and Sharda Hooda , there was one

plaintiff and two defendants.

b) Relevant averments in the plaint

1. That the plaintiff (Late Gen. Budh Singh) was owner of land

measuring 113 kanals 6 marlas comprised in Khewat No.49, Khata No.67

rectangle and kila No.1/23…. and land measuring 110 kanals 9 marlas

comprising in Khewat No.49 Khata No.67 rectangle and kila no…

situated in the area of village Akbarpur Barota, Tehsil and district

Sonepat vide jamabandi for the year 1966-67 alongwith other land as

detailed in the said jamabandi of the jamabandi 1966-67 is attached

herewith.

2. That the defendant in the year 1972 on 24.3.72 alongwith the sons

of Anup Singh Sanjeev Singh and Rajeev Singh filed a declaratory suit

against the plaintiff in the court of Sub Judge, Sonepat and the above said

land detailed in para No.1 if the land was declared the ownership of the

defendants whereas the said land was owned and possessed by the

plaintiff at that time and now also the said land detailed in para No.1 of

the plaint continuous to be owned and possessed by the plaintiff because

the said decree of the Sub Judge Sonepat dated 7.4.72 was not accepted

by the Collector surplus and the land detailed in para No.1 was assessed

and calculated in the area of the plaintiff. The said decree was declared

collusive between the parties and under the eyes of law as provided under

sections 8 and 12 of the Haryana Land Ceiling Act the above said transfer

under the decree does not effect the rights of the original owner i.e the

plaintiff and the plaintiff continues to be owner in possession of the said

land.

c) Prayer

That the plaintiff prays for a decree for declaration to the effect that the land detailed in para No.1 of the plaint continues to be owned and possessed by the plaintiff and the revenue entries in the name of the defendants are wrong and ineffective as the decree of the civil court dated 4.3.72 has been declared a nullity by the civil court and the defendants

SLP (C) No. 3756 of 2023 Page 17 of 28

have no right, title with the same be passed in favour of the plaintiff

against the defendants with costs. Any other relief deemed proper be also

awarded.

d) Decree/Judgment

1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for declaration to the effect that the

plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land and that the defendants have no concern or titled thereto-.

2. The defendants appeared through counsel and filed written statement

admitting the claim of the plaintiffs. Statements of parties/counsel have been recorded.

3. Since the parties are not on issue on any of the points, the suit is decreed

as prayed for leaving parties to bear their own costs.

4. Decree-sheet be drawn accordingly.

III. a) Parties to the Suit

Thereafter, Suit III being Suit No.219/1977 was filed by Anup Singh

against his own father Late Major General Budh Singh praying for a declaration

that Anup Singh was the owner as well as in possession of the Barota land covered

by Suits I and II.

b) Relevant averments in the plaint

1. That agricultural land measuring 119 kanals 14 marlas, and 56

kanals 16 marlas totaling 16 kanals 12 marlas, comprising in Khewat No.

52, Khatauni No.64, rectangles and killa No…..situated in the area of

village Akbarpur, Barota Tehsil and distt. Sonepat vide jamabandi for the

year 1971-72 along with other land in the same village and other villages

such as Bhatgaon, as ancestral land of the parties and as shown in the

name of the defendant No.1 in the previous Revenue Records. The copies

of the jamabandi are attached herewith

2. That the above said land, detailed in para No.1 of the plaint along

with other lands were wrongly entered in the names of Shrimati Saroj

Salkan and Smt. Sharda daughters of the defendant, as owners in the

Revenue Records in the year 1971-72 but the defendant after filing a suit

in the Civil Court get the revenue records corrected and the above said

lands as detailed in para No.1 of the plaint were again reverted in the name

of the defendant and mutations No.2335 and 2336 were duly entered and

sanctioned in the name of the defendant as owners and since the defendant

is shown as owner of the above land as detailed in para No.1 of the plaint.

Copies of the mutations are attached herewith.

SLP (C) No. 3756 of 2023 Page 18 of 28

3. That the plaintiff and the defendant constitute a Joint Hindu Family

being father son and the said daughters Smt. Saroj Salkan and Smt. Sharda

who have since been married, have no more remained members of the Joint

Family and of the ancestral property in question, including land detailed

in para No.1 of the plaint, being ancestral property constitutional Hindu

Joint family pariets to the said property being coparceners of the Hindu

Joint Family are sons of the Hindu Joint Family in equal shares.

4. That the defendants disrupted the Hindu Joint family in the month of

December, 1977 and divided all the Hindu Joint Family property in his

hand of which the defendant was holding as Karta of the Joint Hindu

Family at his own instance and the land detailed in para No.1 of the plaint

was given to the plaintiff in the said family partition by the defendant.

5. That since December, 1977 when the land detailed in para No.1 of

the plaint was given to the plaintiff in partition, the plaintiff is owner in

possession of the same and the defendant has no right or title over the said

land.

c) Prayer

That the plaintiff prays for decree for declaration to the effect that the land detailed in para No.1 of the plaint is owned and possessed by the plaintiff

and the defendants has no right or title over the same, be passed in favour

of the plaintiff against the defendant with costs.

d) Judgment

In view of the admitted written statement as also admitted statement dated

29.9.78, the suit of the Plaintiff is liable to be decreed and is hereby decreed

to the effect that the Plaintiff is the owner in possession of this suit land

described in the heading of the Plaint. However, parties hereto have to bear

their own costs. Decree Sheet is drawn accordingly.

IV. a) Parties to the Suit

Suit IV being Suit No.622/1984 was between Anup Singh and his sons,

where they constituted Joint Hindu Family and pertained to the Anand

Niketan house. The said house was partitioned between them by virtue

of the decree passed in the Suit.

b) Relevant averments in the plaint

1. That the parties to the suit are governed by Hindu Law and they

constitute a Joint Hindu Family, defendant as Karta of the Hindu Joint family and joint family owned ancestral / coparcenary family properties

SLP (C) No. 3756 of 2023 Page 19 of 28

both in Village Bhatgaon and Village Akbarpur Barota and in the said

Hindu Joint Family properties, the plaintiffs had birth right being co-

parcener of the Hindu Joint family and therefore, the owner of 1/3

rd

each

in the said properties and defendant was owner of 1/3

rd

share.

2. That the defendant about 10 years back sold away the coparcenary

property i.e agricultural land measuring about 30 acres situated at

Village Bhatgaon and joint family house, which formed the nucleus of

the Joint Hindu family, by act of good management and out of the said

sale consideration, the defendant purchased the plot No. C-38, situated

at Anand Niketan, New Delhi and thereafter constructed a house thereon

which is known as Khoti No. C-38, situated at Anand Niketan, New

Delhi, shown in the site plan attached and bounded as under:-

North: Service Lane 15' wide

South: Road 45' wide

East: Plot No. C-37

West: Plot No. C-39

3. That besides the above said house as detailed in para No.3, of the

plaint, the said Hindu Joint family also, owns land in the name of the

defendant, measuring 2 kanals 19 marlas, comprising Khewat No. 167,

Khata No. 179, situated in the area of Village Lehlara, Teh. and Dist.

Sonepat, vide Jamabandi for the year 1977- 78, which was also

purchased from Joint Family funds in the name of the defendant and in

which also the plaintiffs and the defendant are owners in possession of

1/3

rd

share each. The copy of Jamabandi is attached.

c) Prayer

That the plaintiffs, most respectfully prayed that the decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of

2/3

rd

share of the properties i.e house C-38, Anand Niketan, New Delhi

and shown in the site plan attached and land as detailed in paras No. 3 & 4 of the plaint and the defendant is only owner in possession of 2/3

rd

share in the same, be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant, with costs. Any other relief which the Ld. Court deems fit and

proper be also passed.

d) Judgment

1. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiffs for declaration

to the effect that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of 2/3

rd

share of

the properties i.e. House C-38, situated in Anand Niketan, New Delhi

and shown in the site plan attached and detailed in para no.3 and 4 of the plaint.

SLP (C) No. 3756 of 2023 Page 20 of 28

2. The suit is being not contested by the defendant. He has filed his

written statement admitting the suit of the plaintiffs and has also got

recorded his statement on oath to the same effect.

3. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiffs succeeds and a decree for

declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of

2/3

rd

share of the house situated in Anand Niketan New Delhi and shown

in the site plan and detailed in para no.3 and 4 of the plaint, and the

defendant is owner in possession of the remaining 1/3

rd

share in that

house, is passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant,

with no orders as to the costs, decree sheet be prepared accordingly and

the file be consigned to the record room with due compliance.

26. Learned senior counsel for Respondent No.2 submitted that effect of the

four decrees was that the Appellant-plaintiff and Respondent No.6 stood ousted

from all the properties of Late Major General Budh Singh.

27. He contended that the Appellant-plaintiff was required to furnish details as

to how and when the self-acquired property was thrown into the fold of the co-

parcenary property by Late Major General Budh Singh. He stated that the plaint

lacked averments regarding exact details of specific date/month/year of creation

of HUF for the first time by throwing property into common hotchpotch. He

contended that a mere averment in the plaint that a Joint Hindu Family or HUF

exists, was not enough, as detailed facts were required to be categorically stated

as to when and how the properties had become HUF properties. Such averment

had to be made by factual references qua each property claimed to be an HUF

property. He emphasised that the plaint was silent about facts as to when (i.e. the

exact date, month and year and whether before or after coming into force of the

Hindu Succession Act, 1956) and how the personal property of Late Major

General Budh Singh was thrown into the common hotchpotch to form an HUF.

28. He submitted that it is well settled law that when pleadings do not give

sufficient details, the Court is not required to frame issues and can dismiss the

claim or pass a decree on admission. In support of his submission, he relied upon

the judgment passed by this Court in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes &

SLP (C) No. 3756 of 2023 Page 21 of 28

Ors v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (D) Tr. Lrs. & Ors. 2012 (5) SCC 370, wherein

it has been held as under:-

“74. If the pleadings do not give sufficient details, they will not raise an

issue, and the Court can reject the claim or pass a decree on admission.

On vague pleadings no issue arises. Only when he so establishes, does the

question of framing of an issue arise. Framing of issue is an extremely

important stage in a civil trial. Judges are expected to carefully examine

the pleadings and documents before framing of issues in a given case.”

29. He lastly stated that the Appellant-plaintiff by way of the instant suit had

indulged in luxurious litigation. He pointed out that such act of the Appellant-

plaintiff had been condemned by the Division Bench in the impugned judgement,

wherein it was observed as under:-

“47. We condemn the act of appellant, who in a very half-hearted, almost

callous manner, chose to initiate this luxurious litigation wasting the

precious time of the legal machinery by setting it into motion without

any cause or purpose. The suit contains half-baked facts which are not

permissible in law. Nothing stopped appellant from filing requisite proof

to establish her case qua the Barota land; to challenge the previous

judgment dated 08.03.1977 passed in Suit II; to challenge the title deeds

in favor of late Mr. Anup Singh qua Anand Niketan property; take

appropriate steps qua Bhatgaon land. The initiation thereof by appellant

is a gross abuse of the process of law. Clever drafting and illusory basis

cannot make the suit maintainable if it does not have any material basis.

Learned Single Judge has rightly exercised his powers under Order XII

rule 6 of the Code by nipping it in the bud, thereby closing the chapter

of disputes qua the five ancestral properties involved.”

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.3

30. Mr. Narendra Prabhakar, learned counsel for Respondent No.3 stated that

the present suit filed by Appellant- plaintiff was founded on two erroneous

assumptions, namely, that there was a presumption of Joint Hindu Family

property despite no specific averment in the plaint that a Joint Hindu Family had

SLP (C) No. 3756 of 2023 Page 22 of 28

been constituted post 1957 and that all the decrees passed by the Courts below

were false and inconsequential.

31. He submitted that in law there is a presumption that every Hindu Family

which is joint in food and worship is a Joint Family; but there is no presumption

that the estate is joint or that the properties of the family members belong to the

Hindu Joint Family.

32. He stated that Sanjiv Singh (son of Anup Singh) sold a part of Barota land

to Respondent N o.6 vide sale deed dated 23

rd

January 1992 and subsequently, the

said property was sold by Respondent No.6 to one Kuldeep Khatri vide sale deed

dated 12

th

January 2000. He submitted that the aforesaid documents, by way of

deemed fiction incorporated in Order XII CPC stood admitted by Respondent

No.6.

REJOINDER ARGUMENTS

33. In rejoinder, Mr. Dushyant Dave and Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior

counsel for the Appellant-plaintiff and Respondent No.6 fairly stated that their

clients were confining their relief to Barota and Anand Niketan properties. They candidly stated that they were not pressing any relief qua lands at Kalupur,

Sonepat, Bhatgaon and Dairy Plot at Sonepat.

34. They submitted that even if the rights with regard to Barota and Anand

Niketan properties had reverted back to Late Major General Budh Singh they

continued to remain co-parcenary properties in which the Appellant -plaintiff and

Respondent No.6 continued to have a share. They stated that this position had

been admitted by Mr. Anup Singh in paragraph 3 of the plaint filed in Suit III

(which has been reproduced hereinabove).

35. They further submitted that decrees passed in the four suits were not

partition decrees as the said decrees had been passed in declaratory suits.

SLP (C) No. 3756 of 2023 Page 23 of 28

REASONING

ORDER XII RULE 6 CPC AUTHORISES THE COURT TO DISMISS THE SUIT

ALSO

36. Having heard learned senior counsel and learned counsel for the parties,

this Court is of the view that the submission that the learned Single Judge could

have dismissed the suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC alone and not under Order

XII Rule 6 CPC and that too without any application being filed by the

Respondents, is untenable in law.

37. Recently, a coordinate Bench of this Court in Rajiv Ghosh vs. Satya

Naryan Jaiswal, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.9975 of 2025 dated 07

th

April,

2025 has upheld the view of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in ITDC

Limited vs. Chander Pal Sood and Son, (2000) 84 DLT 337 (DB) that Order XII

Rule 6 CPC gives a very wide discretion to the Court to pass a judgment at any

stage of the suit and that too on its own motion i.e. without any application being

filed by any party. In the said judgment, it was also held that Order XII Rule 6

CPC, authorises the Court to not only pass a decree regarding admitted claim, but

also to dismiss the suit. The relevant portion of the judgment in Rajiv Ghosh

(supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“36. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court very correctly laid

down the following interpretation of the provision of O. 12, R. 6,

CPC, in the decision of ITDC Limited v. Chander Pal Sood and Son,

reported in (2000) 84 DLT 337 (DB): (2000 AIHC 1990) :

“Order 12, R. 6 of Code gives a very wide discretion to the

Court. Under this rule the Court may at any stage of the

suit either on the application of any party or of its own

motion and without determination of any other question

between the parties can make such order giving such

judgment as it may think fit on the basis of admission of a

fact made in the pleadings or otherwise whether orally or

in writing.”

xxx xxx xxx

39. This rule authorizes the court to enter a judgment where a claim

is admitted and to pass a decree on such admitted claim. This can be

SLP (C) No. 3756 of 2023 Page 24 of 28

done at any stage. [See: Uttam Singh (supra)]. Thus, a plaintiff may

move for judgment upon admission by the defendant in his written

statement at any stage of the suit although he has joined issue on the

defence.” [See: Brown v. Pearson, (1882) 21 Ch D 716]. Likewise, a

defendant may apply for dismissal of the suit on the basis of admission

by the plaintiff in rejoinder.”

EFFECT OF FOUR DECREES. APPELLANT-PLAINTIFF CANNOT GO

BEHIND THEM

38. This Court is of the opinion that it is important to appreciate the effect of

four suits filed by different parties to this litigation between 1971 and 1984.

39. Suit I for declaration (being Suit No.671/1) was filed by the present

Appellant-plaintiff along with her sister Respondent No.6 and minor sons of their

brother Anup Singh on 25

th

March, 1972 against Late Major General Budh Singh

and Anup Singh with respect to Barota and Bhatgaon lands. There was no

pleading in the said suit that any HUF was created post 1957. On the contrary, in

the said plaint, it was averred by the Appellant-plaintiff and Respondent No.6

themselves that upon a mutual partition in 1971, the land situated at Barota was

partitioned between the parties as detailed in paragraph 4 (four) of the plaint and

the land situated at Village Bhatgaon, Tehsil Sonepat fell in the share of Anup

Singh and that he was the absolute owner and in possession of the entire land

situated at Village Bhatgaon.

40. Though Suit I was decreed by mutual consent in accordance with paragraph

4 (four) of the plaint, yet Late Major General Budh Singh filed Suit II (being Suit

No.66/1977) against his two daughters alone i.e. Appellant- plaintiff and

Respondent No.6 herein without impleading either his son (Anup Singh) or his

paternal grandsons, who were parties to Suit I praying for a declaration that Late

Major General Budh Singh continues to be the owner of the land situated at

Village Barota and his daughters have no right or title in the said land as the decree

of the civil court dated 4

th

March, 1972 had been declared a nullity by the

Collector Surplus. It is pertinent to mention that in Suit II, Late Major General

SLP (C) No. 3756 of 2023 Page 25 of 28

Budh Singh did not pray before the Court for a declaration of nullity of the decree

dated 4

th

March, 1972 passed in Suit I. Late Major General Budh Singh in Suit II

also did not seek recall of the decree dated 4

th

March, 1972 to the extent it granted

relief to his paternal grandsons or to his son (Anup Singh). Consequently, the

Court in Sonepat had no occasion and did not declare the decree in Suit I to be a

nullity, in its entirety.

41. Therefore, on a co-joint reading of the pleadings, prayers and

judgments/decrees in Suits I and II to which the Appellant-plaintiff and

Respondent No.6 were parties along with their father (Late Major General Budh

Singh), this Court is of the view that Appellant-plaintiff and Respondent No.6 had

accepted their father as the absolute owner of Barota land . The effect of the

decree in Suit II is that ownership of the entire Barota land stood reverted to Late

Major General Budh Singh and the Appellant -plaintiff and Respondent No.6

stood ousted from the HUF of Late Major General Budh Singh. The revenue

entries in the name of Appellant- plaintiff and Respondent No.6, to their

knowledge, stood declared as wrong and ineffective. As the said decrees and

findings were within the knowledge of the Appellant-plaintiff and Respondent

No.6, they are bound by the same. Consequently, this Court is in agreement with

the view of the Division Bench in the present case that, “the issue of ownership

in favour of late General has already been settled way back on 08.03.1977, which

has neither been challenged nor set aside or modified or appealed by anyone

much less the appellant before us. Thus, a decree by a Court of law is for all

purposes final and binding upon all parties, including the appellant, involved

therein. Such a decree, if not set aside is for perpetuity…”.

42. Thereafter, Suit III ( being Suit No.219/1977) was filed by Anup Singh

against his own father Late Major General Budh Singh praying for a declaration

that Anup Singh was the owner as well as in possession of the Barota land covered

by decrees passed in Suits I and II , except that part of the Barota land that fell in

the share of Respondent No.6 by virtue of the decree passed in Suit I. Even this

SLP (C) No. 3756 of 2023 Page 26 of 28

portion of Barota land which was owned by Late Major General Budh Singh (in

view of the decree passed in Suit II) was willed by him in favour of his paternal

grandsons (i.e. sons of Anup Singh). As Suit III was decreed by consent, Barota

land is governed by the same.

43. Since the decrees passed in Suits II and III were never challenged by the

Appellant-plaintiff and Respondent No.6 before any competent Court, despite

they are having knowledge of the same, they cannot go behind the said decrees

in the present proceedings and argue on the basis that they are a nullity and do

not bind them. In this regard, the learned Single Judge has correctly observed,

“averring in a suit of the year 2007 that decree passed way back on 8.3.1977 i.e.

30 years back is to be treated as collusive and hence not binding cannot help the

plaintiff because as per the decree, the father did act as the owner of the Barota

land”.

RESPONDENT NO.6 CAN’T CONTEND THAT BAROTA IS OWNED BY HUF/

COPARCENARY

44. Moreover, as Respondent No.6 had on her own volition purchased part of

Barota land from Sanjiv Singh (son of Anup Singh) vide sale deed dated 23

rd

January 1992 and subsequently sold the said property to a third party vide sale

deed dated 12

th

January 2000, this Court is of the view that Respondent No.6 is

estopped from contending that Barota property is owned by a co-parcenary/HUF

of which she is a member.

AMENDED SECTION 6 OF HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 IS NOT

APPLICABLE

45. This Court is also of the view that while the decrees in Suits II, III and IV

were declaratory decrees, yet they were grounded on the consensus (between the

parties) that the properties stood partitioned amongst the family members. This

Court says so, not only, on the basis of admission by Appellant-plaintiff and

Respondent No.6 in the plaint filed in Suit I, but also because without a partition

inter se between the parties, the declaratory decrees could not have been passed.

SLP (C) No. 3756 of 2023 Page 27 of 28

It is settled law that partition need not be effected in any particular/standard

format. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the decrees passed in Suits II,

III and IV amount to a recognition and acceptance of the fact of partition between

the parties prior to 20

th

December 2004. Consequently, the proviso to sub-Section

1 of amended Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is attracted to the present

case and arguments advanced by Appellant-plaintiff and Respondent No.6 with

respect to Section 6 are not applicable to the present case.

C-38, ANAND NIKETAN HOUSE

46. As far as C-38, Anand Niketan house is concerned, it was admittedly

purchased by Late Major General Budh Singh in the year 1968 and thereafter on

a request made by him, the said house was transferred by the cooperative society

to Anup Singh by a duly registered perpetual sub-Lease Deed dated 03

rd

April,

1970. Despite, the registered sub-Lease Deed in the name of Anup Singh, being

within the knowledge of the Appellant-plaintiff and Respondent No.6, it was

never challenged for thirty-seven long years prior to the filing of the present suit.

Consequently, the suit to the extent it challenges ownership of C-38, Anand

Niketan house is barred by limitation.

47. In fact, in the plaint filed in Case No.671/1 being Suit I, it was admitted by

the Appellant- plaintiff and Respondent No.6 that upon mutual partition in 1971,

the land situated in village Bhatgaon, Tehsil Sonepat fell in the share of Anup

Singh and that he was the absolute owner and in possession of the said land.

Consequently, the subsequent sale of the Bhatgaon property or use of its sale

proceeds to purchase the Anand Niketan plot and construct a house thereon would

not give any cause of action to the Appellant-plaintiff and Respondent No.6 to

file a fresh suit for partition.

48. Further, the averments qua co-parcenary/Joint Hindu Family owned

ancestral property in Suit IV was only in the context of HUF of Anup Singh and

his two sons to the exclusion of Appellant-plaintiff and Respondent No. 6. In

Mayne’s Hindu Law, 11

th

Edition, p. 347, it has been held that members of a

SLP (C) No. 3756 of 2023 Page 28 of 28

branch, or of a sub-branch, can form a distinct and separate corporate unit within

the larger corporate family and hold property as such. Such property will be joint

family property of the members of the branch inter se , but will be separate

property of that branch in relation to the larger family (See: Kalyani (Dead) by

LRs. vs. Narayanan, 1980 Supp SCC 298). Consequently, this Court is of the

opinion that the averments of co-parcenary/Joint Hindu Family/ancestral property

in Suit IV deal with the co-parcenary/HUF of Anup Singh to the exclusion of

Appellant-plaintiff and Respondent No.6 and give no right or cause of action to

the latter to file a suit for partition.

49. Also, Suit IV was premised on the basis that Appellant-plaintiff and

Respondent No.6 have no right in the properties of their father- Late Major

General Budh Singh as partition of HUF of Late Major General Budh Singh and

HUF of Anup Singh had already taken place. It was in pursuance to the said

pleadings that a decree of partition of Anand Niketan house was passed and the

said house in its entirety was partitioned between Anup Singh and his two sons.

CONCLUSION

50. Keeping in view the aforesaid findings, this Court is of the view that the

present appeal is devoid of any merit. Accordingly, the present appeal is

dismissed.

.…………….J.

[Sanjay Karol]

…………….J.

[Manmohan]

New Delhi;

May 06, 2025.