Delhi High Court Dismisses Partition Suit for Lack of Cause of Action: “Inherited Properties Post-1956 Do Not Automatically Become Coparcenary Without Proof of HUF or Common Family Fund”

Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court rejected the plaint filed by the plaintiffs under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) on the ground of non-disclosure of a valid cause of action. The Court held that:

1. The plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) or coparcenary properties.
2. Properties standing in the individual names of family members could not automatically be treated as coparcenary properties.
3. The plaintiffs’ claim, based on Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was misconceived.

Facts of the Case

1. The plaintiffs, children of defendant no. 2, filed a suit seeking partition of nine immovable properties, alleging that these were coparcenary properties belonging to a HUF created by their grandfather, late Kewal Kishan Sachdeva.
2. The plaintiffs argued that the funds for purchasing these properties came from their grandfather’s electrical goods business, thereby giving them coparcenary rights.
3. The nine properties were titled individually:
   • Some in the name of their grandfather,
   • Some in the name of their father (defendant no. 2), and
   • Some in the name of their uncle (defendant no. 3).
4. The defendants argued that these properties were self-acquired and not coparcenary in nature. They also pointed out that no evidence was provided by the plaintiffs to substantiate their claim.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether the properties in question were coparcenary properties or individually owned self-acquired properties.
2. Whether the plaintiffs could claim a share in the properties during the lifetime of their father and without proof of an existing HUF.
3. Whether the plaint disclosed a valid cause of action under Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Petitioner’s Arguments (Plaintiffs)

1. The plaintiffs argued that under Hindu law, there is a presumption that a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) exists, and therefore the defendants must prove that no such HUF exists.
2. They alleged that the funds used to purchase the properties originated from the grandfather’s business, making these properties part of the HUF.
3. They invoked Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which gives coparcenary rights to children, including daughters, by birth.
4. They claimed a share through their father’s (defendant no. 2’s) share in the properties.

Respondent’s Arguments (Defendants)

1. The properties were self-acquired and titled individually. No legal presumption could be drawn that these were coparcenary properties.
2. The plaint failed to comply with Order VI Rule 4 CPC, which mandates specific details when alleging the existence of an HUF or coparcenary properties.
3. After the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, inherited properties do not automatically become coparcenary; they retain their character as individual/self-acquired properties.
4. Income Tax records and title deeds showed that the properties were self-acquired, not HUF properties.
5. Plaintiffs admitted they had no documents or evidence to prove the existence of an HUF or that the properties were purchased with a common family fund.

Analysis of the Law

1. Hindu Succession Act, 1956:
   • Under Section 8, properties inherited by a Hindu male after 1956 retain their individual character and do not automatically become part of a coparcenary.
   • Only properties that were coparcenary before 1956 or properties blended into an existing coparcenary retain that character.
2. Burden of Proof:
   • The plaintiffs must provide specific material particulars (Order VI Rule 4 CPC) to establish the existence of an HUF or coparcenary properties.
   • There is no presumption that all properties of a Hindu family are HUF properties.
3. Doctrine of Blending:
   • Individual properties can only become HUF properties if they are voluntarily blended with an existing coparcenary.
   • In this case, the plaintiffs failed to prove any blending or existence of a pre-1956 coparcenary.
4. Relevant Precedents:
   • Surender Kumar v. Dhani Ram: Plaintiffs must plead material particulars to establish HUF existence.
   • Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar: Inherited properties retain their individual character under Section 8 of the Act.
   • Neeraj Bhatia v. Ravinder Kumar Bhatia: Coparcenary is a creature of law and cannot be created by agreement or presumption.

Court’s Reasoning

1. The plaintiffs failed to plead or prove the existence of an HUF. There was no evidence of a common family fund or nucleus.
2. The properties were titled in the individual names of the grandfather, father, and uncle.
3. The plaintiffs admitted they had no documents or tax records to show that these properties were part of an HUF.
4. The Court emphasized that after 1956, inherited properties do not become coparcenary by default.
5. Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act applies only to coparcenary properties. Since the properties in question were self-acquired, the plaintiffs could not invoke this provision.

Conclusion

The Court held that:

1. The plaint disclosed no cause of action under law, as the properties were self-acquired and not coparcenary.
2. The plaintiffs’ claim was based on an illusory cause of action.
3. The suit was dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

Implications of the Judgment

1. Proof of HUF: This judgment reiterates that the existence of an HUF cannot be presumed. Specific evidence and particulars must be provided.
2. Post-1956 Properties: Inherited properties after 1956 retain their individual character and do not automatically become coparcenary.
3. Burden of Proof: Plaintiffs seeking partition must establish the existence of coparcenary property beyond mere allegations.
4. Doctrine of Blending: Individual properties cannot become HUF properties unless blended into an existing coparcenary.

Also Read – Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Husband and Relatives in Matrimonial Dispute: Holds That Vague, Retaliatory, and Generalized Allegations Cannot Justify Criminal Prosecution