The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Anil Jain vs Paritosh Jain &Anr.consisting of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna while hearing an application filed under O1R10read with Section 151 CPCobserved that once the HUF itself got dissolved and any ownership in the property in question was terminated by virtue of partition which was duly acted upon by the parties, the applicants have no locus to claim any right, title or interest in the property in question.
Facts
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 the properties are recognized as members of HUF. Even Justice J.D. Jain had expired in 2009. Smt. Anita Jain and late Justice Aruna Suresh were, therefore, the members of HUF and hence, necessary and proper party in the present suit for partition in respect of HUF property.
Contentions Made
Petitioner: By the arrangement arrived at in 1990, the plot of land came to the share of the plaintiff and the two defendants, thus making them owners of 1/3rdshare in the plot and the building and other structures construed thereon. Somewhere in 1998, the residential Bungalowwas constructed by the parties. The suit property is in joint possession of plaintiff and the two defendants. The construction has been done on approximately 35 to 40% of the plot area, while the rest of the land is still an open area. The construction consists of a basement, ground floor and first floor. The plaintiff thus, sought the division of the suit property into three shares by metes and bounds.
Respondent: The suit property is a residential house with independent floors and not one bungalow as claimed by the plaintiff. He never resided in the property in question because he never built his dwelling unit. So, now he cannot claim his share in the portions owned and in exclusive possession of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 by claiming the property to be a bungalow.
Observations of the Court
The Bench noted that there being no challenge ever to the partition till date, the applicants had no ground to stand on. They were seeking right in the property in question through their father-late Justice J.D. Jain but once the HUF itself got dissolved and late Justice J.D. Jain himself ceased to have any ownership in the property in question way back in 1990 by virtue of the partition which was duly acted upon by the parties, the applicants have no locus to claim any right, title or interest in the property in question.
It was also noted that the case of Vineeta Sharma (supra) formed the entire basis of the present application. However, it was clarified in the said judgement itself that the rights of the daughters as coparceners would not be revived in respect of the properties which have already been partitioned.
Judgment
Since the partition had occured way back in 1990 and was duly acted upon as documented in Wealth Tax Returns and affidavits, the applicants cannot agitate a share as fully clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma (supra).The applicants were not able to show any locus to be impleaded as parties in the suit. So, the applications were dismissed.
Case:Anil Jain vs Paritosh Jain &Anr.
Citation: CS(OS) 243/2021, I.A. 13998/2021 & I.A. 14007/2021
Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Decided on: 7th July 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
