Delhi High Court
Ranbir Singh And Ors. vs Amrit Singh Thru Lrs And Ors. on 10 October, 2012
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) No.1244/2002
% 10th October, 2012
RANBIR SINGH AND ORS. ..... Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Saurabh Tiwari, Adv.
versus
AMRIT SINGH THRU LR'S AND ORS. EC+ ..... Defendants
Through : Mr. Rajat Aneja, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1.
This suit is filed by son Sh. Ranbir Singh; plaintiff No. 1, and
plaintiff Nos 2 to 4; who are the wife and children of Sh. Ranbir Singh. The
subject suit is a suit essentially seeking partition of the properties, which
came to be owned by the defendant/father-Sh. Amrit Singh, having been
inherited by him from his own father, Sh. Lal Singh.
2. The following order was passed in this suit on 03.10.2012:
1. This suit was filed by the son Ranbir Singh against the
father Sh.Amrit Singh claiming that the plaintiff had a right in
the ancestral properties. Defendant/father expired during the
pendency of the suit and is now represented by one son
Gurdeep Singh, who claims to be the legal heir, on whom the
properties have devolved to the extent mentioned in the
registered Will dated 29.9.2003.
2. A reference to the plaint shows that the only cause of
action for claiming share in the properties is that the properties
were ancestral in the hands of the father. In law, merely because
the father inherited ancestral properties, the plaintiff/son does
not have a right, and the father/defendant takes the properties as
self-acquired in his hands by virtue of two judgments of the
Supreme Court in The Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur
and Ors. v. Chander Sen & Ors.; 1986 AIR 1753 and
Yudhishtir v. Ashok Kumar, 1987 AIR 558.
3. The matter was passed over once as the counsel for the
plaintiff wanted to read the judgments. The counsel for the
plaintiff after reading of the judgments again seeks time.
4. At request, adjourned to 10th October, 2012, making it
clear that no adjournment shall be granted on the next date of
hearing.
3. A reference to the said suit plaint shows that the only reason for
seeking partition of the suit properties is that these properties were inherited
by the defendant Amrit Singh from his father, Sh. Lal Singh. The cause of
action averred in the plaint is that once Sh. Amrit Singh inherited properties
from his father, Sh. Lal Singh, the properties were ancestral properties, in
which the plaintiffs would automatically have a share therein on account of
the same being ancestral in nature.
4. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid
judgments of The Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and Ors. v.
Chander Sen & Ors. and Yudhishtir v. Ashok Kumar (supra) that after
passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, when a person inherits property
from his paternal ancestor, the property is inherited as a self acquired
property in his hands and not as Hindu Undivided Family property, unless
on the date of death the ancestor, an HUF was existing.
5. In the present case, the father of the defendant Sh. Amrit Singh,
namely Sh. Lal Singh expired in around 1968. This is admitted before me by
the plaintiff No.1, who is present in the Court, although, the date and year of
death does not find any mention in the suit plaint. Once, Sh. Lal Singh dies
after passing of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, the property inherited by his
son namely Sh. Amrit Singh, the defendant, will be self acquired property in
the hands of Sh. Amrit Singh, inasmuch as it is not the case of plaintiff in the
plaint that at the time of death of Sh. Lal Singh, there already existed an
HUF between the parties.
6. In this view of the matter, on the admitted facts, there is no cause of
action which is made out as per the plaint, so as to entitle the plaintiff to the
reliefs as claimed in the suit. Once the properties are self acquired
properties of Sh. Amrit Singh, the plaintiffs cannot claim any right in the
same for seeking partition. I may for the sake of completion of narration add
that the defendant Sh. Amrit Singh died during the pendency of the suit and
he is today represented by his son Sh. Gurdeep Singh, who claims to be one
of the beneficiaries under a registered Will dated 29.09.2003 of the father of
Sh. Amrit Singh. This Will is the subject matter of the dispute of the
testamentary case No. 65/2007, which is pending, and therefore nothing is
observed one way or the other with respect to the validity or otherwise of the
will dated 29.09.2003 by the present judgment and that issue will be decided
in the aforesaid testamentary case.
7. In view of the above, the suit is dismissed leaving the parties to bear
their own costs. Since the suit stands dismissed, all the pending applications
are disposed of and interim orders will stand vacated, however, the present
defendant Sh. Gurdeep Singh will not create any third party interest or
transfer the suit properties for a period of four weeks from today, and which
period is granted to the plaintiff No.1 or any other person legally entitled for
filing of an appropriate suit for partition. When such suit is filed and an
interim application is filed therein, the interim orders will be passed by the
concerned Court without being influenced by the fact that the interim orders
in the present suit are being continued for a period of four weeks from
today.
8. I may also state that I am continuing the interim orders because in the
connected matters CS(OS) 2426/2001 and CS(OS) 1145/2007, interim
orders have been passed and the same are continuing with respect to the suit
properties
9. The suit is disposed of in terms of the above observations.
I.A. Nos. 16430/2011 & 20179/2011 in CS(OS) 1244/2002
10. These IAs are dismissed as not pressed with liberty to the parties to
raise all issues of merits in testamentary case No.65/2007 and CS(OS)
1145/2007. The applications are disposed of accordingly.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
OCTOBER 10, 2012
j
