Inheritance of ancestral properties after 1956 does not create HUF properties under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Specific factual details are required to establish the existence of HUF properties, as required by law.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. When this suit came up for hearing for admission on 19.12.2017, the following order was passed:-

“IA No.15284/2017

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. IA stands disposed of.

CS(OS) 682/2017 & IA No.15284/2017 (u/O 39, Rules 1&2 CPC)

3. In my prima facie opinion, the subject suit is not maintainable and would be hit by the ratio of the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Surender Kumar vs. Dhani Ram, 227 (2016) DLT 217.

4. This Court is so observing because inheritance of ancestral properties after 1956 does no longer create an HUF/Joint Hindu Family. For a Joint Hindu Family/HUF to come into existence after 1956 for the first time, it is necessary that an HUF is created by throwing the property in common hotchpotch. The present plaint does not show creation of an HUF by throwing into common hotchpotch of a property or properties after 1956.

5. The only other way HUF could have come into existence was if there was inheritance of ancestral property prior to 1956, i.e. prior to passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and which Joint Hindu Family/HUF would have continued after 1956. Even this cause of action is conspicuous by its absence in the present case.

6. A prima facie reading of the plaint shows that existence of HUF is alleged on the ground of inheritance of ancestral properties, but inheritance of ancestral properties after 1956 does not result in creation of an HUF in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Chander Sen, (1986) 3 SCC 567 and Yudhishter vs. Ashok Kumar, (1987) 1 SCC 204. I have applied the ratio of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Sunder Kumar case (supra).

7. I am also of the prima facie opinion that besides the suit plaint not disclosing any legal cause of action in view of the ratio of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Chander Sen (supra) and Yudhisther (supra), also, prima facie this Court does not seem to have territorial jurisdiction because every immovable property with respect to which relief is claimed in the present suit is situated in Haryana except one property which is said to be a basement in E-82A, Greater Kailash, New Delhi and with respect to which there will have to be some documentation shown of either plaintiff being a co-owner of the same or with respect to this Greater Kailash property being an HUF property. Self-serving averments of a property being HUF will no longer help a plaintiff after passing of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and as amended by the 2016 amendment thereof whereby the Act is now called The Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act.

8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that he would like to examine the factual and legal position.

9. At request, list on 30January, 2018.”

2. The plaintiff/Dr. Suraj Munjal has filed the present suit for partition, declaration and injunction. As per the plaint and the causes of action therein, there are three categories of properties which are mentioned. First category of properties is stated in para 5(I) of the plaint and which are HUF properties. In the second category of property though the averment is that it is a jointly held property, however, the same para seems to indicate that this second category of property is in fact an HUF property. In my opinion the plaint para 5(II) is not very happily worded with respect to the second category of property and which is only one property being 9 acres of land in village Bhampur, Rania Road, Sirsa, Haryana. The third category is of the joint properties and which are essentially two in number with first property being the control of the shareholding of the defendant no.6 company M/s RC Healthcare (P) Ltd and secondly that plaintiff has become the exclusive owner of the basement premises forming part of the property E-82A, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi.

3. With respect to the HUF properties, which are the four properties in the first category, averments