The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between inherited property and property acquired on partition in the context of coparcenary properties. The judgment emphasizes the need to analyze the nature of the properties and the right to partition based on the legal principles enunciated by various Supreme Court decisions.

JUDGMENT

G.S.PATEL J. - The Appeal is directed against an Order of 21/4/2022. This order was a common order that disposed of three Interim Applications all filed under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 ("CPC"). There are two other Appeals filed by the Corporate Applicants, original Defendants Nos. 18 and 24, Budhrani Housing Developers Private Limited and Krishna Organisors and Builders Private Limited. At the commencement of the hearing today we were requested to club those matters along with the principal appeal filed by the 1st Defendant, Ajay Kumar Garg. It was only after the hearing concluded after several hours that we were asked to take the appeals by the two cooperate entities separately. It is only because they are not listed today that we will take them separately on 23/6/2022.

2. We have heard Mr Jha for the Appellant at some length. We have also heard Mr Bobde in support for a non-appealing Defendant and Dr Tulzapurkar for the original Plaintiffs, Respondents Nos. 1 to

3. 3. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge rejected and dismissed all three Interim Applications under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the CPC.

4. To appreciate the nature of controversy and to put Mr Jha's submissions in an appropriate context, of necessity, we will have to refer to the Plaint. We begin with a description of the array of parties as they stand in the suit. Plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 are two minors. They are the twin children, a son and a daughter, born to the 3rd Plaintiff and the 3rd Defendant. The 3rd Defendant is the son of Defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Their other son is the 4th Defendant. The Plaint recites at the very beginning that the Suit is for declaration, partition and separate possession of a 1/16th undivided share each of the three Plaintiffs respectively in the HUF or coparcenary properties mentioned in Exhibit "B" to the Plaint. Plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 sue through their next friend, their mother and natural guardian, the Plaintiff No.3.

5. The family history is briefly narrated in paragraph 6. The 3rd Plaintiff and the 3rd Defendant were married on 12/2/2011. The twins were born on 5/9/2014. Other details are not relevant except to note that there are evidently matrimonial disputes. Some proceedings have been filed. The 3rd Plaintiff and the 3rd Defendant are not yet divorced.

6. Prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the Plaint from page 319 of the Appeal paper-book read:

(a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that each of the Plaintiff has 1/16th undivided share, right, title and interest in the properties mentioned in the Schedule of the Properties annexed at Exhibit "B" hereto,

(b) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass a decree of partition by metes and bounds so separate 1/16th share of each of the Plaintiffs from the properties mentioned in the Schedule of the Properties annexed at Exhibit "B" hereto,

(c) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass order and decree to put the Plaintiffs in separate and exclusive possession of their 1/16th share each in the properties mentioned in the Schedule of the Properties annexed at Exhibit "B" hereto."

7. The narrative in the Plaint is that the 1st Defendant, the 3rd Plaintiff's father-in-law, traces his ancestry to one Phoolchand, himself the son of one Narsinghdas Garg of Mathura. Narsinghdas dealt in steel vessels in Mathura and elsewhere in Uttar Pradesh. Phoolchand joined the family business. This business prospered and Phoolchand is said to have amassed a considerable fortune, including immovable properties and other assets in Mathura, Delhi and elsewhere in North India. An important averment in paragraph 3(i) at the very head of the Plaint is that Phoolchand acquired these assets "through the corpus and/or nucleus and income earned from the said joint family business."

8. It is then said that Phoolchand expanded his business to Mumbai and Delhi and also increased the range of activities to trading, manufacturing, import and export and sales of meta