Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 5882
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmohan, Mini Pushkarna, JJ.
Deepak Chawla - Appellant
Versus
Rajeev Chawla - Respondent
RFA(OS) 17 of 2023 & CM Appls. 48346-48348 of 2023
Decided On : 20-09-2023
Mr. Lalit Gupta, Dr. Atul Singh, Mr. Aditya Dhankar, Mr. Anmol Ghai, Mr. Priyansh Jain, Advocates along with Appellant in person.
Mr. Tanmaya Mehta and Mr. Manan Batra, Advocates, for the Respondent.
IMPORTANT POINT
The need for specific and substantiated evidence to establish the existence of an HUF and ownership of property under it.
Headnote:
HUF - Property Dispute - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XII Rule 6, Order VI Rule 4 - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - [Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XII Rule 6, Order VI Rule 4, Hindu Succession Act, 1956]
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit for partition claiming 2/3rd share in the property based on a gift deed from the father, while the appellant claimed that the property was jointly owned by the family as part of an HUF.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's claims of the property being part of an HUF were unsubstantiated, and the gift deed in favor of the respondent was valid. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower court's decision of partition and sale of the property.
Issues: Dispute over ownership share in the property, existence of HUF, validity of gift deed, and partition of the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for specific and substantiated evidence to establish the existence of an HUF and ownership of property under it. The court also upheld the validity of the gift deed as it was duly executed and not challenged by the appellant.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the lower court's judgment of partition and sale of the property was upheld.
JUDGMENT
Mini Pushkarna, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 20th September, 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in CS (OS) No. 1214/2014, by which the respondent/plaintiff has been declared as 2/3rd shareholder and appellant/defendant has been declared as 1/3rd shareholder in the property bearing no. E-64, Greater Kailash Enclave - I, New Delhi (`suit property').
2. Facts in brief are that, respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for partition being CS(OS) No. 1214/2014 for partition of the suit property on the premise that father of the parties had transferred his 1/3rd share in favour of the respondent/plaintiff vide gift deed dated 11th June, 2010. Thus, it was contended that respondent/plaintiff became entitled to 2/3rd share in the suit property.
3. It is the case on behalf of appellant/defendant that the suit property had been purchased in the year 1994 jointly in the name of the respondent/plaintiff, appellant/defendant and their father. All were joint owners of the suit property having 1/3rd undivided share each therein.
4. Appellant/defendant filed his written statement in the suit, wherein it was pleaded that a joint Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) exists, of which the respondent/plaintiff, the appellant/defendant and their father were coparceners. The intention of the family throughout was that the suit property shall be divided equally between the appellant and the respondent herein. It was further pleaded that the appellant/defendant reserves his right to challenge the gift deed dated 11th June 2010 executed by the father in favour of respondent/plaintiff.
5. An application was filed on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff before the learned Single Judge being I.A. No. 3676/2021, under Order XII Rule 6 read with Order VI Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for seeking a judgment in his favour on the basis of admissions made by the appellant/defendant in his pleadings.
6. By judgment dated 20th September, 2022, learned Singe Judge allowed the application of the respondent/plaintiff. Learned Single Judge held that only vague and unsubstantiated pleas with regard to the suit property being part of the HUF have been made without any particulars or documents in support thereof. Thus, learned Single Judge passed a preliminary decree of partition declaring the share of appellant/defendant and respondent/plaintiff as 1/3rd and 2/3rd respectively in the suit property. Since submission was made on behalf of the counsel for the parties that property cannot be physically divided by metes and bounds, a final decree of partition was also passed directing sale of the suit property and distribution of the sale proceeds between the parties as per their shares. Further, the parties were also granted the option of making inter se bids for purchase of share of each other in respect of the suit property. Hence, the present appeal has been filed.
7. On behalf of the appellant, it is submitted that reading the written statement as a whole discloses sufficient details of the HUF, property owned by it and the time when such property was acquired for the HUF. The appellant had set out the details and documentary evidence of throwing his own self earnings of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh) in the common hotchpotch on 29th September, 2002, towards the business of a chemist shop in the name and style of Rakheja Chemists at Kalkaji, Delhi which operated as a family business.
8. It is contended that running of businesses demonstrated a community of interest peculiar to an HUF, to be established further by a complete trial. Father of the parties continued to pay the taxes towards the entire suit property. This reinforces the position that the suit property continued to be treated as one with a community of interest, for several decades after it had been purchased. It is contended that a complete and meaningful reading of the written statement sufficiently demonstrated the mutual and common understanding of
