The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of complying with the basic parameters of law of pleadings and law of limitation at the very inception of approaching a court of law.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Banerjee, J. - Appellant/ original plaintiff vide present appeal seeks to set-aside the Impugned Judgment and Decree dated 05.05.2016 Hereinafter referred as 'Impugned Judgment' whereby the learned Single Judge, exercising powers under Order XII rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19082 passed a decree dismissing the suit of appellant as per Section 2(2), of the Code with respect to all the five ancestral properties detailed hereinafter, save and except, granting liberty to appellant, being a daughter of late Gen. Budh Singh3, owner of the Barota, Sonepat land, for approaching the competent court qua one of said the property situated beyond jurisdiction of this Court and also held the suit being barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, as admitted and/ or undisputed position of the pleadings and documents did not show existence of HUF and its properties.

2. Parties herein are lineal descendants of late General as appellant and respondent no. 6/ original defendant no. 6 are his daughters whereas respondent nos. 1 to 5/ original defendant nos. 1 to 5 are the legal heirs of late Mr. Anup Singh, son of late General and brother of appellant and respondent no. 6.

3. Appellant herein instituted a 'Suit for Partition, Rendition of Accounts and Permanent Injunction' against the aforesaid respondents claiming partition of her 1/4th undivided share in the ancestral properties of the late General HUF as she is a coparcener therein under The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (as amended in 2005)4 and alternatively sought partition of her share in the following five ancestral properties of the late General being (a) 72 acres farmhouse in Barota land, Sonepat5; (b) 11 acres Kalupur land, Sonepat6; (c) 8 bigha Dairy plot, Sonepat7; (d) 30 acres Bhatgaon land8; and (e) House no. C-38, Anand Niketan, New Delhi9, acquired out of the funds of the joint family barring the Anand Niketan property, which was said to have been purchased from the sale of Barota Land.

4. As per pleadings, prior to institution of the afore-mentioned suit, parties herein were entangled in various litigations, amongst them, the two earlier suits relevant for the purposes of adjudication of the present dispute are detailed as under:-

Suit No. 67/1/1972: Suit for declaration qua Barota land {appellant, respondent nos. 1, 2 & 6 vs. late General & late Mr. Anup Singh} before Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Sonepat10

Rights in favour of appellant amongst others, in Barota land were declared vide judgment dated 06.04.1972.

Suit No. 66/1977: Suit for declaration qua Barota land {late General vs. appellant & respondent no. 6} before Sr. Sub-Judge, Sonepat11

Based on admission in written statement by appellant, late General was declared as owner of Barota land vide judgment dated 08.03.1977.

5. Thereafter, Suit No. 219/1978 and Suit No. 622/1984 were also instituted inter-se the late General, respondent nos. 1 to 5 and their father late Mr. Anup Singh, but as they were instituted after declaration of late General as the owner of Barota land vide judgment dated 08.03.1977 in Suit II on the basis of the admission of appellant and respondent no. 6, they are not relevant for the purposes of adjudication of the present dispute and are hence being ignored.

6. While dealing with the Barota land, learned Single Judge, placing reliance upon Section 74 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in view of the earlier judgments in Suit I and Suit II noted that appellant along with respondent no. 6 gave up their rights in the same Barota land. Thus, negating the argument of learned counsel for appellant to the effect that both judgments in Suit I and Suit II were collusive and not binding upon appellant, learned Single Judge held that averring about something which happened in 1977 in a suit instituted after 30 years in 2007 (before him) provided no help to appellant as the late General was the owner of the Barota Land and also that the appellant was debarred from raising such argument