The alienation of joint family property by one coparcener gives rise to a cause of action for partition, and mere revenue entries do not extinguish the rights of real owners.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Civil Revision Application (“CRA”) is filed by Defendant No.6, inter alia, challenging rejection of his Application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”) by the impugned order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the Trial Court in Special Civil Suit No.1004 of 2022. The said order is appended at page No.174 of the CRA.

2. Suit plaint is filed by Plaintiffs seeking principal relief of partition and injunction in respect of 6 HUF immovable properties described in paragraph No.1 of the Suit plaint. In addition, Plaintiffs seek declaration that registered Sale Deed dated 20.10.2020 executed between Defendant No.1 (one of the coparcener) namely Rama Maruti Darekar and Defendant No.6 - Damodar Badrinarayan Bhandari, whereby out of the 6 Suit properties, 4 properties are transferred in entirety by Defendant No.1 to the exclusion of the other coparceners shall not be binding on the Plaintiffs.

3. Revision Applicant is Defendant No.6 before the Trial Court. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are Plaintiff Nos.1 to 3. Respondent No.4 is Defendant No.1. Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos.1 to 5 belong to the same family. Defendant No.6 is a third party purchaser of 4 out of the 6 Suit properties.

4. Thus, there are three set of parties before the Court. Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos.1 to 5 belong to 4 branches of the Darekar family whereas Defendant No.6 is a third party purchaser who has purchased 4 out of the 6 HUF Suit properties from Defendant No.1 in the year 2020. Suit is filed on 08.12.2021.

5. Cause of action stated in the Suit plaint by Plaintiff is that the 6 properties stated in paragraph No.1 of the Suit plaint are HUF joint family properties and ancestral properties which are yet to be partitioned and apportioned between Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos.1 to 5 as per their respective shares in the said properties. It needs to be emphasized that, admittedly partition of the suit properties has not been done till date. This position is not even disputed by Defendant No. 6.

6. Necessity for filing the Suit in December 2021 has arisen for Plaintiffs, when Plaintiffs learnt about alienation of 4 out of the 6 suit properties by Defendant No.1 to Defendant No.6. It is contended by Plaintiffs in the plaint that Suit properties are Hindu Undivided Family (for short “HUF”) properties belonging to the original ancestor of Plaintiffs’ and Defendant Nos.1 to 5’s namely deceased "Ranu Mukinda Darekar" who expired in 1956. It is averred in the plaint that by Mutation (QsjQkj) Entry No.834, mutation was made in the name of Maruti Dagadu Darekar as Manager of the Suit properties. Here it needs to be added that Defendant No.6 has admitted that name of Maruti was recorded as HUF Manager of the family comprising of himself and his three brothers, viz. Vishnu, Janardhan and Dattu. It is further averred in the Suit plaint that admittedly Suit properties belonged to father of Plaintiff No.1 namely Vishnu Dagadu Darekar, father of Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 namely Janardan Dagadu Darekar, father of Plaintiff No.4 and husband of Plaintiff No.5 namely Dattu Dagadu Darekar and father of Defendant Nos.1 to 5 namely Maruti Dagadu Darekar, in the ratio and proportion of Hissa 1 Anna 10 (part) each. It is Plaintiffs’ specific case that all along since then, Suit properties stood in the name of Maruti Dagadu Darekar as Manager of the HUF. That on 28.12.1964, Maruti Dagdu Darekar expired and thereafter Suit properties were mutated in the name of his minor son namely Rama and his daughter alongwith the name of father of Plaintiff No.1 namely Vishnu Dagadu Darekar, father of Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 namely Janardhan Dagadu Darekar and father of Plaintiff No.4 and husband of Plaintiff No.5 namely Dattu Dagadu Darekar as joint family property. It is specifically averred in the Suit Plaint that Mutation (QsjQkj) Entry No.1291 was in respect of this specific status and position in respect of the Suit properties.

7. It is next averred that name of the