Delhi High Court
Veronica (Minor) Through: Mother ... vs Jitendra Pal Singh Sodhi & Ors on 9 December, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 9th December, 2019
+ CS(OS) 405/2016 & IAs No.9889/2016 & 11579/2018 (both
u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC) & 12536/2018 (u/S 151 CPC)
VERONICA (MINOR) THROUGH: MOTHER
NEETU SODHI ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Deepak Verma, Adv.
Versus
JITENDRA PAL SINGH SODHI & ORS ..... Defendants
Through: D-1 in person for D-2&3.
Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Adv. for
D-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. The plaintiff No.1 Ms. Veronica (Minor), acting through her
mother plaintiff No.2 Neetu Sodhi, has instituted this suit for (i)
declaration that the plaintiff No.1, being a coparcener and Class I heir,
is entitled to a share of 1/18th + 1/72th of properties (a) B-10/329,
Sunder Vihar, New Delhi, (b) Plot No.418, measuring 249.51 sq.
yards, situated in the Hindustan Corporate House Building Society
Limited, In Guruharkishan Nagar, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, (c) land
bearing Khasra Nos.21/1, 2/1, 20/2, 5/2, 14/21, 33/1, 15/14, 20 & 24
viz standard area 32 Karnal & 9 Marlas and total area with cost 41
Karnal 19 Marlas situated at P.O. & Village Jallupurkhara Tehsil &
Distt. Amritsar, (d) land bearing Khasra Nos.45/3, 39/23 & 24/2 viz 3
Karnal 19 Marlas. No had Basta 16 situated at P.O. & Village
Jallupurkhara Tehsil & Distt. Amritsar, (e) Two plots for houses (one
CS(OS) No.405/2016 Page 1 of 6
near Late Sodhi Kashmira Singh's House and another plot in front of
it); complete particulars of which are pleaded to be not available with
the plaintiff at present, (f) One open Havelli, and one House near Late
Sodhi Mela Singh situated at P.O. & Village Jallupurkhara Tehsil &
Distt. Amritsar, (g) Plot No.3, Block-A, Ballabhgarh, Gurgaon,
Haryana and (h) Schemes of Unit Trust of India dated 03.02.1992 and
other dates; (ii) directions to the defendants specially the defendant
No.1 Jitendra Pal Singh Sodhi, to give details of the entire ancestral
properties, to enable the plaintiffs to claim their share in other
properties; (iii) partition; and, (iv) permanent injunction restraining the
defendants from dealing with the properties.
2. The pleaded case of the plaintiffs is, (I) that the plaintiffs and
the defendants No.1 to 4 are members of Joint Hindu Family; (II) that
the defendants No.1 & 2 Jitendra Pal Singh Sodhi & Bhartinder Kaur
Sodhi are the paternal grandparents of plaintiff No.1 and father and
mother-in-law of plaintiff No.2; (III) that the defendant No.3 Harpreet
Sabharwal is the paternal aunt of the plaintiff No.1 and sister-in-law of
plaintiff No.2 Neetu Sodhi ; (IV) that the plaintiff No.1 and defendant
No.4 Ayesha Sodhi are sisters by half blood, having common father;
(V) that the father of the plaintiff No.1 and husband of the plaintiff
No.2 namely Jaspreet Singh Sodhi died on 16 th February, 2015; (VI)
that the defendant No.1, being the grandfather of the plaintiff No.1, is
Karta of Joint Hindu Family; (VII) that the entire properties devolved
upon defendant No.1 and his brother Parvinder Pal Singh Sodhi from
their father late Trilok Chand Sodhi; (VIII) that the defendant No.1 is
CS(OS) No.405/2016 Page 2 of 6
the Karta and the plaintiff No.1 and defendants No.3, 4 and 5 are
coparceners; (IX) that on the death of Jaspreet Singh Sodhi, who was
the father of the plaintiff No.1, a notional partition would take place
and whereunder the defendant No.1 and his brother Parvinder Pal
Singh Sodhi will get half share each; (X) that the said half share of
defendant No.1 will further get divided between deceased Jaspreet
Singh Sodhi, defendant No.1 and defendant No.3, as all of them are
coparceners; (XI) thus, defendant No.1, Jaspreet Singh Sodhi and
defendant No.3 will get 1/6th share each; (XII) that the said 1/6th share
of deceased Jaspreet Singh Sodhi will get divided between Jaspreet
Singh Sodhi, plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.4, who are coparceners;
and, (XIII) that the 1/8th share of deceased Jaspreet Singh Sodhi would
further devolve by way of succession upon plaintiff no.1, plaintiff
no.2, defendant no.3 and defendant no.4 in equal parts, as Class I
heirs.
3. The suit came up first before this Court on 16th August, 2016,
when summons thereof were ordered to be issued, though interim
relief sought not granted.
4. The defendants No.1 to 4 have filed a written statement and to
which a replication has been filed by the plaintiffs.
5. The suit came up before this Court last on 5th December, 2019,
when a short accommodation was sought by the counsel for the
plaintiffs. The counsel for the defendants on that date opposed the
adjournment, contending that the suit was totally misconceived and
the plaintiffs were only interested in keeping the same pending.
CS(OS) No.405/2016 Page 3 of 6
6. I have today enquired from the counsel for the plaintiffs, on
what basis the plaintiffs claim a share in the properties and partition
thereof.
7. The counsel for the plaintiffs states that all the properties have
been inherited by defendant No.1, being the grandfather of the
plaintiff No.1 and father-in-law of the plaintiff No.2, from his father
Trilok Chand Sodhi.
8. I have further enquired from the counsel for the plaintiffs, the
date of demise of Trilok Chand Sodhi.
9. The counsel for the plaintiffs states that Trilok Chand Sodhi
died on 23rd July, 1995 i.e. much after the coming into force of the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
10. I have enquired from the counsel for the plaintiffs, whether not
under the Hindu Succession Act, all properties inherited by defendant
No.1 Jitendra Pal Singh Sodhi from his own father, Trilok Chand
Sodhi, who died in 1995, would be the personal properties of
defendant No.1 Jitendra Pal Singh Sodhi and how the father and
husband of the plaintiffs namely Jaspreet Singh Sodhi would have a
share therein.
11. The counsel for the plaintiffs has no response and only states
that in according to him, Jaspreet Singh Sodhi would have a share
therein.
CS(OS) No.405/2016 Page 4 of 6
12. Attention of the counsel for the plaintiffs is drawn to
Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur Vs. Chander Sen (1986) 3
SCC 567, Yudishter Vs. Ashok Kumar (1987) 1 SCC 204, Harvinder
Singh Chadha Vs. Saran Kaur Chadha 2014 SCC OnLine Del 3413
(DB), Neelam Vs. Sada Ram (2013) 197 DLT (CN) 52, Rajat
Khanna Vs. R.P. Khanna (2013) 200 DLT 203, Sunny (Minor) Vs.
Raj Singh (2015) 225 DLT 211, Surender Kumar Vs. Dhani Ram
2016 SCC OnLine Del 333, Kamlesh Devi Vs. Shyam Sunder Tyagi
2017 SCC OnLine Del 12701, Saurabh Sharma Vs. Omwati (2018)
250 DLT 544, A.N. Kaul Vs. Neerja Kaul 2018 SCC OnLine Del
9597, Bhagat Singh Vs. Paltu Ram 2018 SCC OnLine Del 10012,
Aditya Prasad Dube Vs. Shobha Dube 2018 SCC OnLine Del 6567,
Meghna Grover Vs. Amit Grover 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11586 &
Raj Kumar Vs. Ram Bhaj Bansal 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9658.
13. However, the counsel for the plaintiffs is unaware thereof.
14. By mere use of the words 'Joint Hindu Family', 'coparceners'
and 'Karta', a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) or a coparcenary does
not come into existence. There is no plea, of Trilok Chand Sodhi
having inherited the properties from any of his ancestors. There is no
plea, that any coparcenary was ever in existence or was constituted.
Interestingly, though mention is made of Parvinder Pal Singh Sodhi,
being the brother of defendant No.1 Jitendra Pal Singh Sodhi but
neither he nor his branch of the family have been impleaded. Had
there been any coparcenary, Parvinder Pal Singh Sodhi and his branch
would also have a share and would be the necessary party. The only
CS(OS) No.405/2016 Page 5 of 6
response of the counsel for the plaintiffs is that since claim out of the
share of defendant no.1 Jitendra Pal Singh Sodhi has been made and
no share out of the share of Parvinder Pal Singh Sodhi and his branch
of the family has been made, they have not been impleaded.
However, it is not the case that there was any earlier partition of the
coparcenary, if any of which Jitendra Pal Singh Sodhi and Parvinder
Pal Singh Sodhi were coparceners. The same falsifies the claim of
coparcenary and HUF.
15. The suit, as other suits mentioned above, has been filed on a
misconception of Hindu law and forgetting the Hindu Succession Act.
Reiterating, what has been observed in some of the judgments
aforesaid, that young lawyers borne after 1956 seem to remember the
law of prior to their birth and not the law contemporaneous or
applicable at the time of their birth, the suit is dismissed. I refrain
from imposing costs on the plaintiffs.
Decree sheet be prepared.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
DECEMBER 09, 2019
'bs'..
