The court ruled that a consent decree was not established in prior proceedings, allowing minors to pursue claims for partition and challenge alienations of HUF properties.

: JASMEET SINGH, J I.A. No. 4643 of 2023

1. This is an application filed on behalf of defendant Nos. 3 and 4 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of plaint.

BREIF BACKGROUND

2. In the present plaint, the substantial prayers read as under:-

a) That a decree for declaration may be passed in favour of the Plaintiffs that the purported sale of properties detailed in paras 26 and 32 sold by the Defendants No. 1 to 4 are void and in any case do not bind the interest of the plaintiffs and a decree may also be passed declaring that the properties hereto shown in Schedules belong to H.U.F. b) That it may be further declared that the Plaintiffs are not bound by the said illegal and void transactions and debts raised by Defendant No. 1 from Defendants No. 5 and 6. c) That a decree for partition by metes and bounds of the Joint Hindu Family properties and separate possession be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs may be given their share as per Mitakshara Hindu Law.

d) That a preliminary decree for rendition of accounts of the various businesses houses, concerns, properties as described and delineated in Schedules "A" and "B" attached above, may be granted in favour of the Plaintiffs and as against the Defendants.

3. As per plaintiffs, the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and their ancestors formed a Joint Hindu Family (“HUF”) being Vaish Aggarwals are governed by Mitakshara Hindu Law. At the time of the death of L. Khem Chand in the year 1943, the HUF owned and possessed various immovable properties and businesses in India.

Various immovable properties were purchased by the HUF in the name of the said Joint Hindu Family Firm and/or in the individual name of the defendant nos. 1 to 4 out of the income and funds of the HUF.

4. In the present case, at the time of filing of the suit, plaintiff No. l was the minor son and plaintiff No. 2 was the minor daughter of defendant No. 1 and plaintiff No. 3. The plaintiff No. 3 has no interest adverse to the interests of her then minor children, plaintiffs No. 1 and 2. For the sake of convenience, the pedigree table of the HUF is extracted below:-

5. Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 have been carrying on various businesses in various trade names at various places in India and abroad, and some of the business names owned by the HUF were “Khem Chand Raj Kumar”, “Khem Chand Vijay Kumar”, “Shiv Chand Steel Rolling Mills”, “Steel Corporation of Punjab”, “Khem Chand Ajay Kumar”,

“Malavika Machine Tools”, besides others.

6. After passing away of L. Khem Chand, Raj Kumar (defendant No. 2), being the eldest male member of the family became and acted as Manager and Karta of the HUF and had been maintaining all accounts of various incomes and funds belonging to the HUF.

7. Defendants No. 1 to 4 were stated to be in possession of all the books of accounts and other records of various businesses and they were misappropriating money, making false and fictitious entries in the Account Books, removing stocks, making secret sales and withdrawing money from the various businesses with a view to deprive the plaintiffs of their dues and legitimate shares in the HUF businesses and properties. Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 created assets in the name of their dependents and others from the income of the HUF.

8. In 1973, defendant No. 1 filed a suit at Jalandhar for partition and rendition of accounts against other defendants Nos. 2 to 4, which was registered as Suit No. 180 of 1973 (“1973 Suit”). The 1973 suit was later on disposed of on receipt of an amount of Rupees One lac and some property by defendant No. 1, who relinquished almost all business houses, property movable and immovable all over India.

9. It is further stated that in the matter of the alleged partition as well as the earlier dealings which took place between the aforesaid members of family, the interest of the plaintiffs were grossly neglected. The said alleged partition was, even if it did take place was unequal, unfai