JUDGMENT

Valmiki J. Mehta, J (ORAL)

1. The subject suit has been filed by the plaintiff for partition, possession, rendition of accounts, injunction, etc. on the ground that the suit property vested with Sh. Tulsi Ram, who was the grandfather of the plaintiff and the father of the defendant no.1. As per the suit/plaint, plaintiff has rights in the properties inherited by the defendant no.1 from his father, and which properties are set out in para 4 of the plaint as under:

"(A) AGRICULTURAL LAND - 29 BIGHAS 5 BISWAS

(i) Khasra No.78/1 (3 Bighas 11 Biswas)

(ii) Khasra No.78/9 (4 Bighas)

(iii)Khasra No.78/10 (4 Bighas 5 Biswas)

(iv)Khasra No.78/11 (4 Bighas 5 Biswas)

(v) Khasra No.78/12 (4 Bighas 16 Biswas)

(vi)Khasra No.81/6 (4 Bighas 16 Biswas)

(vii) Khasra No.81/15 (3 Bighas 12 Biswas)

Situated in Village Rithala, Delhi-110085

(B) One Double storey house constructed over the plot measuring about 75 sq. yds. bearing House No.161/164 situated at Village Rithala, Delhi.

(C) One double storey house constructed on plot bearing No.67 measuring about 125 sq. yds. including one shop.

(D) RESIDENTIAL PLOT

(i) Plot No. 931 (02 Bighas 04 Biswas)

(ii) Plot No.1012/1 (08 Biswas)

(iii) Plot No.1013 (02 Bighas 11 Biswas)"

2. The date of death of the grandfather, Sh. Tulsi Ram is 2.11.1980, and as noted in the order of this Court dated 4.9.2012. On 4.9.2012, the following order was passed:

"I.A. No. 10268/2012 (u/O XIV R 2(2) CPC for deciding the preliminary issues, by plaintiff)

As per the suit plaintiff claims right to the properties of late Sh. Tulsi Ram who was said to have expired on 02.11.1980 i.e after the passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. I have put the counsel for the plaintiff to notice of the judgments delivered in The Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and Ors. vs. Chander Sen Ors., 1986 AIR 1753 and Yudhister Vs. Ashok Kumar, 1987 AIR 558 which say that if a person inherited property from his paternal ancestor after passing of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the inheritance will be as a self-acquired property and not as HUF property. Prima facie, therefore, the suit, on the admitted facts, does not make out a legal entitlement which needs to be adjudicated and, therefore, may have to be dismissed. Counsel for the plaintiff after having gone through the aforesaid judgments on the matter being passed over prays for further time to address arguments.

At request, adjourned to 7th September, 2012."

3. Issues in this case were framed on 21.10.2002 and whereafter, the suit was to be listed for deciding of a preliminary issue under IA No.10268/2012, and as per which, it had to be decided whether the properties which are governed by the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1985, cannot be the subject matter of the present suit. Issue nos. 2 and 3 were framed on this aspect. Therefore, plaintiff wanted to get the issues, which were got framed on behalf of the contesting defendant of bar of the suit under Section 185 of the Delhi land Reforms Act, 1985 decided as preliminary issues.

4. I have already reproduced the order dated 4.9.2012 above. It is admitted that the defendant no.1 inherited the property from his father Sh.Tulsi Ram, and who is the grandfather of the plaintiff, when Sh. Tulsi Ram died on 2.11.1980. It is not the case of the plaintiff that Sh.Tulsi Ram was a member of an existing HUF. The only case as per the plaintiff is that on the death of Sh. Tulsi Ram, his son-defendant no.1-the father of the plaintiff, received the properties from Sh.Tulsi Ram as ancestral properties in his hands.

5. This issue is no longer res integra that if a male member inherits property from his paternal ancestors after passing of the Hindu Succession Act in 1956 then the inheritance in his hands is not an HUF property but only as a self-acquired property. This is the ratio of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur etc. v. Chander Sen AIR 1986 SC 1753 and Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar AIR 1987 SC 558. Th