The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for detailed facts to establish the existence of HUF and its properties, and the need for the plaint to plead a cause of action of an HUF in accordance with Order 6 Rule 4 CPC.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV NARULA, J.

I.A. 3975/2019 (under Order 6 Rule 17) & I.A. 3976/2019 (under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC)

1. This judgment shall dispose of the two applications, one filed by the Plaintiff [IA No. 3975/2019-under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint] and another one filed by Defendant No. 3 [I.A No. 3976/2019-under Order 7 Rule 11(a) read with Section 151 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint]

2. The present suit seeks relief of partition, rendition of accounts and permanent injunction. As per the facts narrated in the plaint, the case of the Plaintiff is that Late Sh. Somnath Dandona was the Karta of the Hindu Undivided Family (hereinafter referred to as "HUF") and the parties to the present suit are the members/coparceners of the HUF who were living under a common roof. The assets of the HUF comprise of the following immovable properties:- (a) House No. 275, ground floor, Kailash Hills, New Delhi. (b)House No. E-25, Vasant Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. (c) Plot No. 77, Karanpur Road, Dehradun, Uttaranchal.

3. It is contended that Late Sh. Somnath Dandona expired on 25th March 2008 and his widow Late Smt. Shyam Kumari Dandona died on 5 th February 2019. During their lifetime, the family existed as an HUF. Both of them died intestate, and are survived by Janhavi Duggal (Defendant No. 1-mother of Plaintiff) and Sh. Paresh Dandona (Defendant No. 3-maternal uncle of the Plaintiff). Defendant No. 2 is the brother of Plaintiff. Defendant No. 4 and Defendant No. 5 are sons of Sh. Paresh Dandona (cousin brothers of Plaintiff). Plaintiff claims that being a member of the HUF, she is entitled to share in the properties noted above. It is contended that in the month of AugustSeptember 2018, Plaintiff requested the Defendants for partitioning the HUF properties. In October 2018, Defendants assured the Plaintiff that a family settlement would be drawn up, however later, despite persistent requests, it was never done. Defendant No. 1 refused to give Plaintiff her share in the HUF properties. Subsequently, Plaintiff came to know that the properties are being sold and accordingly, the present suit was filed to protect her interest. In the written statement, Defendant No. 3 [Sh. Paresh Dandona] inter alia contended that the suit properties were self acquired property of Late Sh. Somnath Dandona and Mrs. Shyam Kumari Dandona and the same has devolved by survivorship on Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 3 and no other person has any right to lay a claim over the same. It is further contended that by virtue of a consent decree passed in CS(OS) 1175/2010, the property at Vasant Vihar has been divided into two portions, one for Defendant No. 1 and the other one for Defendant No. 3. The property at Kailash Hills has fallen into the share of Defendant No. 1 under the said settlement.

4. The aforesaid defense of the Defendants has prompted the Plaintiff to file an application seeking amendment of the Plaint. In the application, it is alleged that for the first time during the hearing on 7 th March 2019, counsel for Defendant No. 3 disclosed that a partition suit bearing [CS (OS) No. 1175/2010] was decided on 4 th February 2015, by way of compromise, and the rights qua the suit properties have been settled between Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 3. The Plaintiff claims that she was not aware of the said proceedings and was shocked on gaining knowledge of the aforesaid compromise/settlement between the Defendants and now seeks to amend the plaint by introducing averments, to assail the compromise decree passed in CS (OS) 1175/2010. The proposed amendments have two components. The first one being introduction of averments giving the background which has resulted in the consent decree dated 4 th February 2019. The second is amendment of the prayer clause. Plaintiff now seeks additional prayers by way of declaration that the settlement/decree dated 4 th February 2019 is not binding on her on the ground that she was