Back
2025 Supreme(Del) 844
2025 DHC 351
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jasmeet Singh, J.
Dr. Pushpalata And Anr. - Plaintiffs
Versus
Ram Das Huf & Ors. - Defendants
CS(OS) 2382 of 2007
Decided On : 23-01-2025
Advocates Appeared :
For the Plaintiff : Mr Varun Nischal, Mr. Rajat Manchanda, Mr. Parveen Kalra, Ms. Aditi Singhal, Ms. Somya, Mr. Deepanshu Bharti, Mr. Shubham Sharma, Advs.
For the Defendant : Mr. Manish Vashisht, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rikky Gupta, Ms. Ananya Singh, Mr. Vanshay Kaul, Mr. Vedansh Vashisht, Ms. Harshita Nathrani, Advs.
Mr Varun Nischal, Mr. Rajat Manchanda, Mr. Parveen Kalra, Ms. Aditi Singhal, Ms. Somya, Mr. Deepanshu Bharti, Mr. Shubham Sharma, Advs., Mr. Manish Vashisht, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rikky Gupta, Ms. Ananya Singh, Mr. Vanshay Kaul, Mr. Vedansh Vashisht, Ms. Harshita Nathrani, Advs.
The court affirmed that the plaintiffs, as daughters, are entitled to a share in HUF properties under the amended Hindu Succession Act, while clarifying that marriage to a Muslim does not sever their rights.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 6 - Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 - Partition of HUF properties - Plaintiffs claimed 1/5th share in HUF properties after amendment - Court held HUF existed at the time of amendment; plaintiffs entitled to share in PPF account and properties C-1034 and C-1035 as goodwill gesture from defendants. (Paras 1, 35, 138)
(B) HUF Properties - Existence and dissolution - Court found no evidence of dissolution of HUF; properties were part of HUF until gift deed executed in 2004. (Paras 1, 56, 70)
(C) Legal Standing - Marriage to a Muslim - Court ruled that marriage does not automatically sever rights under Hindu law; plaintiff retains rights as coparcener. (Paras 128, 134)
(D) Evidence - Burden of proof - Plaintiffs failed to prove that certain properties were HUF properties; defendants provided sufficient evidence of ownership. (Paras 87, 90)
JUDGMENT :
Jasmeet Singh, J.
1. The instant suit has been filed seeking the following substantial prayers:-
a. To pass a decree of declaration that the Plaintiff is entitled to 1/5th share of the Suit HUF properties.
b. To pass a preliminary decree of partition in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants holding the Plaintiff to be entitled to 1/5th share of the Suit HUF properties.
c. To pass a decree for declaration in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants declaring that any change in the record of ownership or any Agreement/contract of sale etc. if any done or entered into by any of the Defendants without express consent of the Plaintiff in respect of the Suit HUF properties mentioned in is null and void and not binding upon the Plaintiff;
d. After passing the preliminary decree as at (a) and (b)above, pass orders for appointment of local commissioner/s for effecting the partition by metes and bounds of the suit properties with a further direction to the local commissioner to suggest other modes of partition and in case this Hon'ble Court comes to the conclusion that it is not possible to effect partition by metes and bounds, then the suit properties be sold/ release and the sale/realisation proceedings be distributed between the parties in proportion to their share demarcated.
e. pass final decree of partition in terms of either the report of the local commissioner or any other mode as stated in the prayer "d" above and if the need arises, by delivering the actual vacant physical possession of the respective portions to the parties.
f. For permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their servants and agents from selling, alienating, encumbering or parting with possession in any manner and ousting the Plaintiff from the joint possession of the properties described above till passing of a final decree for partition partitioning the properties in between the co sharers by metes and bounds;
g. For a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their servants and agents from illegally and forcibly dispossessing the Plaintiff from the suit HUF properties.
h. To pass an order directing the Defendants to render accounts of the rents accrued from the tenancy of the ground floor of the HUF Residential property at New Friends Colony East.
2. The plaintiff no. 1 i.e. Dr. Pushpa Lata is the eldest daughter of the defendant No. 2 (since deceased) from his first wife, namely, Mrs.Shakuntala Devi (since deceased).
3. Defendant no. 1 i.e. Ram Das HUF was created by defendant no. 2 i.e.Dr. Ram Das in the year 1978.
4. Defendant no. 2 was the father of the plaintiff and defendant nos. 3- 5 and was also the „Karta' of the defendant no. 1. Defendant no. 3 and 4 are the sons of the defendant no. 2 from his second wife, namely, Mrs. Shanti Devi (since deceased). During the present proceedings, defendant no. 2 died on 10.12.2008.
5. Defendant no. 5 i.e. Smt. Usha Singh is the other daughter of defendant no. 2 from his first wife i.e. Mrs. Shakuntala Devi. Plaintiff no. 1 and defendant no. 5 are real sisters. Vide order dated 08.12.2008, the defendant no. 5 was transposed as plaintiff no. 2.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AS PER THE PLAINTIFF
6. Defendant no. 2 was married to Mrs. Shakuntala Devi in the year 1937 who died on 03.10.1943. Thereafter, defendant no. 2 got married to Mrs. Shanti Devi on 24.02.1944. The plaintiffs are real sisters and defendant nos. 3 and 4 are real brothers interse and the step brothers of the plaintiffs.
7. In the year 1978, defendant no. 2 created defendant no. 1 i.e. Ram Das HUF (hereinafter referred as “HUF”) from the ancestral nucleus and/or self-acquired property, all thrown into the common stock for the benefit of the entire family of defendant no. 2. Defendant no. 2 was the „Karta' of the HUF. As per the plaintiffs, the HUF is in control of the following properties/assets:-
a. A three storied house situated at A-28, Friends Colony East, New Delhi measuring501.67 sq. mts and the lease rental accruing from it (h
