The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rights of daughters as coparceners would not be revived in respect of properties that have already been partitioned, as clarified in the Vineeta Sharma judgment.

JUDGMENT :

I.A. 14007/2021 (Under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC for impleading Smt. Anita Jain being the legal heir and a coparcener of late Justice J.D. Jain and his HUF as proposed defendant No. 3 in the present suit)

1. This application has been filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC, 1908 on behalf of the applicant/proposed defendant No. 3 seeking impleadment of Ms. Anita Jain, legal heir/daughter of late Justice J.D. Jain, (Retd.) claiming to be a coparcener of late Justice J.D. Jain, HUF as proposed defendant No. 3 in the present suit.

I.A. 13998/2021 (Under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC for impleading Sh. Rajneesh Chopra & Sh. Divyang Chopra as proposed defendant Nos. 4 & 5 of late Justice Aruna Suresh, Retd. in the present suit)

1. This application has been filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC, 1908) on behalf of the applicants Sh. Rajneeh Chopra and Sh. Divyang Chopra, both sons of the legal heir of late Justice Aruna Suresh, (Retd.), being legal heir/daughter of late Justice J.D. Jain, (Retd.) seeking impleadment as proposed defendant Nos. 4 and 5 in the present suit.

I.A. 13998/2021 & I.A. 14007/2021

1. By virtue of the two applications, daughter-Anita Jain and LRs Rajneesh Chopra and Divyang Chopra, sons of deceased daughter-late Justice Aruna Suresh, daughter of late Justice J.D. Jain have sought impleadment as parties to the suit on the ground that late Justice J.D. Jain had constituted J.D. Jain, HUF of which suit property was a part. In the light of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended in 2005, recent judgement in Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma (2020) 9 SCC 1 (decided on 11th August, 2020), the properties are recognized as members of HUF. Even Justice J.D. Jain had expired in 2009f. Smt. Anita Jain and late Justice Aruna Suresh were, therefore, the members of HUF and are necessary and proper party in the present suit for partition in respect of HUF property.

2. Submissions heard. My observations are as under:

3. In order to understand the claim of the applicants, it would be pertinent to refer to the factual matrix as has emerged from the pleadings and submissions of the parties. Plaintiff-Anil Jain has preferred the present suit for partition of the land and residential bungalow at 43/1-D, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’) for determination of the shares of the parties and also for division of the property by metes and bounds in equal shares.

4. Facts in brief, as disclosed in detail in the Written Statement of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and not denied by the plaintiff, are that Sh. Jagan Nath Jain (Paternal Grandfather of the parties to the suit) was the Karta in the Joint Hindu Family and his three sons, namely, Justice J.D. Jain (Retd.), Sh. S.P. Jain and Sh. A.K. Jain were coparceners along with two other persons, namely, Dr. K.C. Jain and Mr. S.C. Jain.

5. The property in question i.e., Plot No. 43/1, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi, admeasuring 2554.08 square yards was purchased by the HUF vide registered Sale Deed dated 17th March, 1969.

6. As per the mutual agreement arrived at between the parties, Justice. J.D. Jain and his brothers, Sh. S.P. Jain and Sh. A.K. Jain became the owners of one half share of the property, while Dr. K.C. Jain and his brother, namely, Sh. S.C. Jain were owners of other half. By way of an oral partition, an area of 1150.53 square yards fell to the shares of late Justice J.D. Jain and his brothers, while the other half share admeasuring 1140.55 square yards fell to the share of Dr. K.C. Jain and Sh. S.C. Jain and an area of 248 square yards was left as a common passage, as per the mutual understanding. Subsequently, due to some misunderstanding between the parties, late Justice J.D. Jain and his brothers filed a Suit bearing No. O.S. No. 354/1971 before this Court and a consent decree of partition was