IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Judgment on admission - Order XII Rule 6 CPC, authorizes Court to not only pass decree regarding admitted claim, but also to dismiss suit.
(2) Partition of joint family property - Partition need not be effected in any particular/standard format - Members of a branch, or of a sub-branch, can form a distinct and separate corporate unit within larger corporate family and hold property as such.

JUDGMENT :

MANMOHAN, J

1. Leave granted.

2. The present Appeal has been filed challenging the impugned judgment and final order dated 15th 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 5th 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 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.

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:

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 herein-below:

“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.

(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 i