The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Dr. G.M Singh vs Dr. Trilochan Singh & Ors. consisting of Justice Amit Bansal reiterated that O12R6 CPC confers wide discretion on the Court to pass more than one decree at different stages of a suit.
Facts
This suit was filed on behalf of the plaintiff seeking relief of declaration, partition and possession in respect of three immovable properties. Plaintiff and the defendants no.1 to 3 are brothers, the defendant no.4 is their sister and the defendants no.5 and 6 are the children of another predeceased sister.
Contentions Made
Defendant: It was contended that there were no pleadings in the plaint regarding the creation, existence or continuity of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). So, relying on Surender Kumar Khurana v. Tilak Raj Khurana & Ors. it was contended that the subject property cannot be made subject matter of the present suit on the basis that it is an HUF property. In this case it was held that there have to be clear pleadings in the suit with regard to existence and creation of an HUF, the date on which the HUF was created, whether it was created after 1956, who were and are its coparceners and karta and in the event the HUF was created after 1956, when was the property claimed to be an HUF property, put in the common hotchpotch.
Observations by the Court
The Bench relied on Suraj Munjal v. Chandan Munjal & Ors. which upheld the invocation of O12R6 CPC to dismiss the suit insofar as certain properties in the said suit were concerned, on the ground that pleadings regarding the said properties being part of the HUF were not made in the plaint.
It perused pleadings in the plaint vis-à-vis the subject property and noted that there was no reference to the existence or creation or continuity of an HUF either prior to 1956 or post 1956. Further, there was no pleading in the plaint regarding the subject property being put into the common hotchpotch at any point of time since 26th April 1974, the date of execution of the sale deed for the subject property.
It further noted that the plaint was also barred under the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (Benami Act), as it existed on 1st November 2016 since the subject property is in the name of the defendant no.1. No pleadings had been made in the plaint to bring the subject property within the exceptions contained in Section 4(3) of the unamended Benami Act.
Reliance was placed on Raveesh Chand Jain v. Raj Rani Jain wherein it was held that O12R6 CPC confers wide discretion on the Court to pass judgment on admissions, at any stage, which leads to the conclusion that more than one decree may be passed at different stages of a suit.
Judgment
The Bench invoked provisions of O12R6 CPC and keeping the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments in view, dismissed the suit in respect of the reliefs sought regarding the property. The suit was decreed to continue so far as the other two properties are concerned. It was listed for consideration of the pending applications on 13th February, 2023.
Case: Dr. G.M Singh vs Dr. Trilochan Singh & Ors.
Citation: CS(OS) 2430/2014
Bench: Justice Amit Bansal
Decided on: 20th October 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :