Inheritance from paternal ancestors after 1956 is self-acquired property, not ancestral property, absent evidence of HUF.

The Plaintiff (Appellant) filed a suit for partition and possession against his father (Defendant No. 1) and brother (Defendant No. 2) regarding a property in Shahdara.

The property was originally purchased by the Plaintiff’s grandfather, Ganda Mal, who died in 1967.

Subsequently, his two sons (including Defendant No. 1) relinquished their shares in favor of their mother, Ram Pyari, via a registered deed in 1994.

Ram Pyari then executed a registered Will in favor of Defendant No. 1.

Defendant No. 1 later executed a registered Will in favor of Defendant No. 2, excluding the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff claimed a 1/3rd share, asserting the property was "ancestral".

The Trial Court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC, holding that no cause of action for partition existed as the property was self-acquired in the hands of the father.

1. Whether a property inherited through a Will or from parental ancestors after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, automatically qualifies as ancestral/HUF property.

2. Whether the absence of a probate for a Will is a bar to its validity or Barker in the National Capital Territory of Delhi.

3. Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC based on the admitted history of the property.

The court applied Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which grants a female Hindu absolute ownership of property possessed by her.

It relied on Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act as interpreted in Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur v. Chander Sen and Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar, establishing that property inherited from paternal ancestors after 1956 is treated as self-acquired and does not automatically create an HUF.

The court also applied the principle from Kanta Yadav v. Om Prakash Yadav that probate is not a mandatory requirement for Wills in Delhi.

The court reasoned that since the Plaintiff’s grandfather died in 1967 (post-1956), and the property eventually reached Defendant No. 1 through a Relinquishment Deed and a subsequent Will by Ram Pyari, the property lost any "ancestral" character.

Under Section 14, Ram Pyari became the absolute owner; thus, her bequest to Defendant No. 1 made it his self-acquired property.

The court found that the Plaintiff failed to plead any specific facts—such as the property being thrown into a "common hotchpotch"—that would legally transform self-acquired property into HUF property.

Regarding the procedural challenge, the court held that while Order VII Rule 11 only considers the plaint, the Plaintiff’s own admissions regarding the chain of title (Sale Deed 1966, Relinquishment 1994, and Wills) legally precluded his claim for partition as a right by birth.

It further held that probate is not required in Delhi to establish rights under a Will.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Trial Court’s order rejecting the plaint as the suit disclosed no cause of action.