The main legal point established in the judgment is that in order to claim a share in ancestral properties as part of an HUF, it is necessary to provide specific factual details of the creation or existence of the HUF properties, as required by law.

JUDGMENT :

1. This suit is filed seeking a preliminary decree of partition of the suit properties, namely, J-5, Ground Floor, Saket, New Delhi-110007, 5-B, Sagar Apartment- 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi and other properties mentioned in relation to the share of the plaintiffs.

2. The plaintiffs are minors being represented through their mother Smt.Shelly Kapur. Defendant No.1 is the grandfather of the minor plaintiffs. Defendant No.2 is the grandmother of the minor plaintiffs. Defendant No.3 is the father of the plaintiffs and defendant No.4 is the sister of defendant No.3.

3. It is pleaded in the plaint that the great grandfather of the plaintiffs, Late Sh.Lal Chand Kapur, father of defendant No.1-Sh.K.B.Kapur was the owner of various lands and houses in Delhi including a house at Darya Ganj. The said Sh.Lal Chand Kapur died intestate. It is stated that after his death, the estate of Late Sh.Lal Chand Kapur fell in the hands of his sons, namely, Sh.K.B.Kapur/defendant No.1 and his brother-Sh.Parvesh Kapur who became owners to the extent of one-half each. The estate held by Sh.K.B.Kapur/defendant No.1 is an ancestral property qua the minor plaintiffs, the same being purchased from the funds obtained by selling the ancestral property i.e. property of Late Sh.Lal Chand Kapur. It is further pleaded that defendants No.3 and 4, the children of defendant No.1, are the joint owners being coparceners to the extent of 1/4th share each in the estate left behind by Late Sh.Lal Chand Kapur. Therefore, the plaintiffs being the children of defendant No.3-Mr.Rishi Kapur, it is pleaded, by virtue of succession of the coparcenary properties have a share in the properties being held by defendants No.1 to 4 purchased out of the funds obtained by selling the properties of their great grandfather Late Sh.Lal Chand Kapur. It is claimed that the plaintiffs are the co-owners in respect of their undivided share in the suit properties to the extent of 1/8 share each.

4. It is further claimed that in the year 1981-82, defendant No.1 sold away the ancestral property at Darya Ganj bearing No.2638, Gali Khajoor Masjid, Kucha Chalan, Daryaganj, Delhi and out of the proceeds bought other properties either in his own name or in the name of his wife comprising of the house being (i) J-5, Ground Floor, Saket, New Delhi measuring 500 sq.yds; (ii) Office in Sagar Apartments being 5-B, Sagar Apartments, 6 Tilak Marg, New Delhi; (iii) one Godown in Mahipalpur; (iv) One office in East of Kailash; (v) a plot of 1100 sq.yds in Gurgaon and there is also (vi) one more flat in Gurgaon. It is pleaded that since the properties received by defendant No.1 attain the characteristic of a caparcenary property, once the children, namely, the plaintiffs were born, they became coparceners in the ancestral properties in the hands of defendants No.1 to 4. It is stressed that the said properties were bought by selling the ancestral property at Darya Ganj and throwing the proceeds into a common hotch-potch. The suit properties hence acquire a status of an HUF property. Prior to 1956, the great grandfather of the plaintiffs owned the Darya Ganj property. Hence, an HUF was existing prior to 1956 and that HUF continued after 1956. In that HUF the grandfather of the plaintiffs, namely, defendant No.1 inherited the Darya Ganj property after 1956, which was thrown into a common hotch-potch. As such the paternal successor-in-interest of the grandfather of the plaintiffs will have the right upto 3 degrees and as such the plaintiffs have a right in the suit properties.

5. It is admitted that there is a marital dispute between Smt.Shelly Kapur, the mother and guardian of the minors through whom the suit has been filed and defendants No.1 to 4. The said Smt.Shelly Kapur has filed a petition under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in the court of learned MM, Saket where the matter is said to be pending trial.

6. I may also note that defendants No.1 and 2 have also filed a suit against