The main legal point established is the requirement for clear documentary evidence and detailed factual references to establish HUF property, as well as the presumption that every Hindu family is joint in food and worship, but there is no presumption that the estate is joint or the property is the Hindu joint family property.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)

1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff inter alia praying for the partition of the property bearing No.12-D, Old Gupta Colony, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "suit property").

2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property was the self- acquired property of the father of the plaintiff Late Sh. Mohan Lal Oberoi, who passed away intestate on 28.11.2004 at Delhi, leaving behind his legal heirs, that is, his wife Smt. Pushpa Rani, the plaintiff, the defendant nos.1 to 3, and the defendant nos.4 to 6 (who in turn are the legal heirs of Smt. Veena Grover, the deceased daughter of Late Sh. Mohan Lal Oberoi and Smt. Pushpa Rani). Smt. Pushpa Rani also passed away intestate on 19.10.2014 at Delhi.

3. The plaintiff asserts that the said property was purchased by Late Sh. Mohan Lal Oberoi by way of registered Sale Deed dated 20.08.1957. The construction over the said property was also done by Late Sh. Mohan Lal Oberoi. In view of the above, the plaintiff claimed 1/5th share in the suit property.

4. In the written statement filed by the defendant no.1, the defendant no.1 has set up a case that Mr.Malik Shah, the grandfather of the plaintiff and the defendant nos.1 to 3, was a resident of Punjab in Pakistan and was possessed of joint family property in shape of a house and agricultural land in Pakistan. He was allotted 20 acres of land at Ambala and a Haveli against the claim of the property left behind in Pakistan. He sold the agricultural land and purchased the property at Ajmere Gate, Delhi, for which the amount was paid from the fund of Malik Shah HUF. It is further asserted that the suit property was purchased by Mr. Malik Shah, being Karta of the HUF, in the name of Late Sh. Mohan Lal Oberoi. The defendant no.1 further pleaded that the said HUF remained in existence, and on 05.12.2004, there was a partition of the properties of the HUF whereunder the suit property fell to the exclusive share of the defendant no.1.

5. On 18.07.2019, on hearing the parties, this Court was pleased to pass the following order:

"2. The case of Defendant No.1 is that the property is a HUF property. This plea is taken in the written statement in the brief facts. However, there is no document which ld. counsel for Defendant No.1 is able to show that there ever existed an HUF, or whether there was any intention of the parties to form an HUF. Further, in view of the recent judgments of this Court in Neel Dayal v. Someshwar Dayal, and Ors., [CS (OS) 168/2016, decided on 22nd March, 2017], Aarshiya Gulati and Ors. v. Kuldeep Singh Gulati and Ors., [CS (OS) 2223/2013, decided on 4th February, 2019], and Sunita Aggarwal and Anr. v. Tej Ram Aggarwal and Ors., [CS(OS) 11/17 decided on 12th March, 2019], until and unless there is clear documentary evidence showing that the property has been treated and accepted by the family as an HUF property, the plea of Defendant No.1 would not be liable to be accepted. If there is no document showing the suit property to be an HUF property, then a partition decree would, in fact, be liable to be passed in this case.

3. At this stage, ld. counsel for Defendant No.1 seeks a last opportunity to produce some documents to show that the property is a HUF property as Defendant No.1 is unwell and has undergone dialysis. Ld. counsel for the Plaintiff submits that no opportunity should be granted as there is no document being relied upon by Defendant No.1 in the written statement to support the plea of HUF. In view of the medical condition of Defendant No.1, this Court is inclined to give a last opportunity to Defendant No.1 for producing any document, failing which a partition decree would be liable to be passed. Needless to add, the documents ought to have been filed prior to the stage of framing of issues. No adjournment shall be granted on the next date."

6. Based on the liberty granted, the defendant no.1 filed certain additional documents. The same were considered by this Co