JUDGMENT Hima Kohli, J. (Oral)-The present suit is instituted by the plaintiff for seeking declaration and injunction against the defendants with the following prayers:

II A - pass a decree of declaration declaring defendant No.1 to be unfit to act as Karta of Dalip Singh HUF and a declaratory decree removing the defendant No.1 as Karta of Late Dalip Singh HUF; .

B - grant a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1 to act as Karta of Dalip Singh HUF;

C - costs of the suit;

D - pass such and further order / orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. II

2. During the pendency of the present proceedings, the defendant No.1 expired on 21.12.2007.

3. Counsel for the defendant No.1 states that the present suit has abated on the death of defendant No.1. He states that the relief sought by the plaintiff is specifically directed against the deceased defendant No. I, as is apparent from a perusal of the prayer clause. On the other hand, Counsel for the plaintiff submits that as the estate of the HUF enures, and requires to be protected, the present suit subsists and can be continued.

4. A perusal of para 17 of the plaint which refers the cause of action on the basis of which the present suit was instituted by the plaintiff makes it manifest that the entire allegations are levelled personally against defendant No. 1. The same is also borne out from a perusal of paras 18-20 and 23 of the plaint wherein the plaintiff has explained the reasons for seeking removal of the defendant No. 1 as a Karta of Dalip Singh HUF by making personal allegations against the defendant No.1 and by referring to his ill health. In view of the fact that the defendant No.1 has now expired, the very cause of action which formed the basis for institution of the suit stands extinguished and nothing further survives in the suit.

5. It is also pertinent to note that the plaintiff has filed a separate suit for partition in respect of thp. suit property, which is stated to be pending in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Delhi. In case the plaintiff has any concerns about protecting or administering the estate of the HUF, then he has his remedies available in the aforesaid pending proceedings. Hence reliance placed by the Counsel for the plaintiff on the judgments in the cases of Maharaj Jagat Singh v. Lt. Col. Sawai Bhawani Singh and Ors., reported as 1993 Supp (2) SCC 313 and Kasturi Bai and Others v. Anguri Chaudhary, reported as II (2001) SLT 481=(2001) 3 SCC 176 are misplaced as in both of the said cases, the Court had directed for, appointment of Receiver in facts peculiar to those cases. The judgment in the case of Kedarnath Kanoria and Ors. v. Khaitan Sons and Co., reported as AIR 1959 Calcutta 368 is also not applicable to the case in hand as in the said case, the Court was dealing with a specific question as to whether in a suit brought by the Karta of an HUF, where during the pendency of the suit the HUF was disrupted and subsequently the Karta died, the name of the new Kartas could be substituted for that of the plaintiff. Hence, the facts of the said case have no application in the facts of the present case.

6. There being no cause of action surviving in favour of the plaintiff upon the demise of defendant No.1, the present suit is disposed of as having abated.

All pending applications are also disposed of.

Suit disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document