DR. PUSHPALATA AND ANR. vs RAM DAS HUF & ORS.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Del) 844

HIGH COURT OF DELHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH, J
DR. PUSHPALATA AND ANR. – Appellant
Versus
RAM DAS HUF & ORS. – Respondent

Advocates:
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.

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 1/5^th 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 1/5^th 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/ rele

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

DR. PUSHPALATA AND ANR. Vs RAM DAS HUF & ORS. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 98: The provided text describes factual details about the creation and management of "Ram Das HUF" by Dr. Ram Das as Karta/Manager, followed by a partial citation to two cases: "Jupudi Kesava Rao and Ors., 1994 SCC OnLine AP 1" and "Mallesappa Bandeppa Desai & Anr. vs." (incomplete). There are no keywords or phrases indicating any judicial treatment patterns (e.g., followed, distinguished, criticized, overruled, reversed, or abrogated) for any referenced case. The text appears to be an excerpt from a judgment discussing facts and citing precedents without specifying how those precedents were treated. Treatment is entirely unclear and ambiguous due to lack of explicit indicators.