Saroj Salkan vs Huma Singh - 2025 Supreme(SC) 776

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 776

SANJAY KAROL, MANMOHAN
Saroj Salkan – Appellant
Versus
Huma Singh – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shubhankar Sengupta, Adv. Mr. Aarush Bhatia, Adv. Ms. Anindita Mitra, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sameer Singh, Adv. Ms. Neelam Singh, AOR Mr. Alok Sangwan, Adv. Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, AOR Ms. Vani Vyas, Adv. Mr. Prakhar Singh, Adv. Mr. Narendra Prabhakar, Adv. Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR Mr. Nimish Arjaria, Adv. Mr. Umesh Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, AOR M/S. Vachher And Agrud, AOR Mr. Aman Vachher, Adv. Mr. Dhiraj, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, Adv. Mrs. Anshu Vachher, Adv. Ms. Abhiti Vachher, Adv. Mr. Akshat Vachher, Adv. Ms. Nandni Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Jasvinder Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Alok Sangwan, Adv. Mr. Sameer Rohatgi, Adv. Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajat Sangwan, Adv. Mr. Shikhar Narwal, Adv. Ms. Shehla Chaudhary, Adv. Mohd. Anas Chaudhary, Adv. Mohd. Sharyab Ali, Adv. Mr. Kartikey Singh, Adv. Mr. Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, AOR

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:

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

(d) Bhatg

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes VS Erasmo Jack de Sequeria - 2012 2 Supreme 602: No keywords or phrases indicating judicial treatment (e.g., followed, overruled, reversed). The entry consists solely of legal principles on possessory suits, title, possession, and injunctions, with no references to how subsequent cases have treated it.

Vineeta Sharma VS Rakesh Sharma - 2020 4 Supreme 193: No keywords or phrases indicating judicial treatment. The entry summarizes holdings on Hindu Succession Act Section 6 (as amended), coparcenary rights for daughters, and partition under Hindu law, without any mention of subsequent case treatments.

Uttam Singh Dugal And Company LTD. VS Union Bank Of India - 2000 5 Supreme 425: No keywords or phrases indicating judicial treatment. The entry states an "IMPORTANT POINT" on judgments on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, but provides no indication of how it has been treated by other cases.

Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil VS K. Madan Mohan Rao - 2023 5 Supreme 408: No keywords or phrases indicating judicial treatment. The entry discusses election petitions, voters' rights to candidate background, and limitations on proceedings under Order VII Rule 11 or Order XII Rule 6 CPC, with no references to treatment by subsequent decisions.

Rajiv Ghosh VS Satya Naryan Jaiswal - 2025 4 Supreme 163: No keywords or phrases indicating judicial treatment. The entry explains judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 as enabling/discretionary, but lacks any indicators of followings, overrulings, or other patterns.