Saroj Salkan vs. Huma Singh

REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 632
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
th
final order dated 15 November, 2022 passed by the High Court of Delhi in RFA
(OS) No. 51/2016, whereby the Division Bench dismissed the appeal and upheld
th
the Decree dated 5 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 Court 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
JATINDER KAUR
Date: 2025.05.06
17:01:15 IST
Reason:
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 1 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]

(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 2 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 3 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
th
Bench vide judgment and order dated 11 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 4 of 28


SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT-PLAINTIFF
7. Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel for the Appellant-plaintiff
th
submitted that the impugned judgment dated 05 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 5 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
th
sister (Respondent No.6) and minor sons of their brother Anup Singh on 25
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
th
Court decreed Suit I on 06 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 6 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
th th
08 March, 1977 declaring the decree dated 04 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
th
said suit was decreed on admission on 6 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
rd
also decreed on admission of defendant therein on 03 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 7 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
th
effect from 09 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 8 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 was his self-acquired
property was misplaced. He submitted that once there was 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
th
dated 07 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 9 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 10 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
rd
upon his paternal grandsons by way of a registered Will dated 03 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
rd
to Anup Singh, by a duly registered perpetual sub-lease deed, way back on 3
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

th
In the Case No.671/1 of 1972 ( Suit I , decreed on 06 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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
th
In the case No.66 of 1977 ( Suit II , decreed on 08 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 16 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 17 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.

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 18 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-
rd
parcener of the Hindu Joint family and therefore, the owner of 1/3 each
rd
in the said properties and defendant was owner of 1/3 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
rd
1/3 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
rd
2/3 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
rd
& 4 of the plaint and the defendant is only owner in possession of 2/3
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
rd
to the effect that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of 2/3 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 19 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
rd
2/3 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
rd
defendant is owner in possession of the remaining 1/3 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 20 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 21 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
rd
to Respondent No.6 vide sale deed dated 23 January 1992 and subsequently, the
said property was sold by Respondent No.6 to one Kuldeep Khatri vide sale deed
th
dated 12 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 22 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

th
Naryan Jaiswal, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.9975 of 2025 dated 07 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 23 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
th
brother Anup Singh on 25 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
th
of the civil court dated 4 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 24 of 28


Budh Singh did not pray before the Court for a declaration of nullity of the decree
th
dated 4 March, 1972 passed in Suit I. Late Major General Budh Singh in Suit II
th
also did not seek recall of the decree dated 4 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 25 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
rd
Barota land from Sanjiv Singh (son of Anup Singh) vide sale deed dated 23
January 1992 and subsequently sold the said property to a third party vide sale
th
deed dated 12 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 26 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
th
the parties prior to 20 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
rd
to Anup Singh by a duly registered perpetual sub-Lease Deed dated 03 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
th
Mayne’s Hindu Law, 11 Edition, p. 347, it has been held that members of a
SLP (C) No. 3756 of 2023 Page 27 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.
SLP (C) No. 3756 of 2023 Page 28 of 28