2016 (1) TMI 1435 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of suit - suit dismissed on the ground that the suit plaint does not disclose the cause of action - partition of HUF property - share as a coparcener in the aforesaid suit properties on the ground that the properties when they were inherited by late Sh. Jage Ram were joint family properties, and therefore, status as such of these properties as HUF properties have continued thereby entitling the plaintiff his rights in the same as a coparcener - HELD THAT - A reference to the plaint in the present case shows that it is claimed that ownership of properties by late Sh. Jage Ram in his name was as joint Hindu family properties. Such a bald averment in itself cannot create an HUF unless it was pleaded that late Sh. Jage Ram inherited the properties from his paternal ancestors prior to 1956 or that late Sh. Jage Ram created an HUF by throwing his own properties into a common hotchpotch. These essential averments are completely missing in the plaint and therefore making a casual statement of existence of an HUF does not mean the necessary factual cause of action, as required in law, is pleaded in the plaint of existence of an HUF and of its properties. The requirement of pleading in a clear cut manner as to how the HUF and its properties exist i.e whether because of pre 1956 position or because of the post 1956 position on account of throwing of properties into a common hotchpotch, needs to be now mentioned especially after passing of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and which Act states that property in the name of an individual has to be taken as owned by that individual and no claim to such property is maintainable as per Section 4(1) of the Benami Act on the ground that monies have come from the person who claims right in the property though title deeds of the property are not in the name of such person. An exception is created with respect to provision of Section 4 of the Benami Act by its sub-Section (3) which allows existence of the concept of HUF. Once existence of the concept of HUF is an exception to the main provision contained in sub-Sections (1) and (2) of Section 4 of the Benami Act, then, to take the case outside sub-Sections (1) and (2) of Section 4 of the Benami Act it has to be specifically pleaded as to how and in what manner an HUF and each specific property claimed as being an HUF property has come into existence as an HUF property. If such specific facts are not pleaded, this Court in fact would be negating the mandate of the language contained in sub-Sections (1) and (2) of Section 4 of the Benami Act. This Court is flooded with litigations where only self-serving averments are made in the plaint of existence of HUF and a person being a coparcener without in any manner pleading therein the requisite legally required factual details as to how HUF came into existence. Actually the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in fact is treated as an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, inasmuch as, it is observed on the admitted facts as pleaded in the plaint that no HUF and its properties are found to exist. There is no averment in the plaint that late Sh. Jage Ram inherited property(s) from his paternal ancestors prior to 1956. In such a situation, therefore, the properties in the hands of late Sh. Jage Ram cannot be HUF properties in his hands because there is no averment of late Sh. Jage Ram inheriting ancestral property(s) from his paternal ancestors prior to 1956. There is no averment in the plaint also of late Sh. Jage Ram s properties being HUF properties because HUF was created after 1956 by late Sh. Jage Ram by throwing properties into a common hotchpotch. The application is allowed and the suit is accordingly dismissed as there is no cause of action which is found to exist with respect to existence of an HUF and its properties.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit plaint discloses a cause of action.
2. Whether the properties in question are Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) properties.
3. Legal implications of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 on ancestral properties.
4. Requirements for pleading the existence of an HUF and its properties.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the suit plaint discloses a cause of action:
The application filed by defendant no.1 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeks dismissal of the suit on the ground that the plaint does not disclose the cause of action. The defendant argued that the plaintiff, being only a grandson of late Sh. Jage Ram and not a class I legal heir, cannot claim any right to the properties. The plaintiff, however, contended that the properties are joint Hindu family properties, and as a coparcener, he is entitled to a share. The court examined whether the plaint adequately disclosed the cause of action by considering the legal status of the properties and the plaintiff's rights therein.

2. Whether the properties in question are Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) properties:
The plaintiff claimed that the properties were inherited by late Sh. Jage Ram and remained joint Hindu family properties. The court scrutinized the nature of these properties by referring to the Supreme Court judgments in *Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and Others Vs. Chander Sen and Others* and *Yudhishter Vs. Ashok Kumar*. These judgments established that after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the inheritance of ancestral property does not automatically create HUF property unless the inheritance occurred before 1956. The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide necessary details to prove that the properties were inherited before 1956 or were converted into HUF properties by throwing them into a common hotchpotch.

3. Legal implications of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 on ancestral properties:
The court reiterated the legal position post-1956, as per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, that ancestral properties inherited after this period do not automatically become HUF properties. The court emphasized that for properties to be considered HUF, they must have been inherited before 1956 or explicitly converted into HUF properties post-1956. The court noted that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence or pleadings to establish that the properties in question met these criteria.

4. Requirements for pleading the existence of an HUF and its properties:
The court highlighted the necessity of detailed factual pleadings to establish the existence of an HUF and its properties, as mandated by Order VI Rule 4 CPC. It emphasized that mere assertions of properties being HUF properties without specific details of how and when the HUF was created are insufficient. The court found that the plaintiff's plaint lacked the requisite details, such as the date of inheritance or the act of throwing properties into a common hotchpotch, to substantiate the existence of an HUF.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action as it failed to adequately plead the existence of an HUF and its properties. The application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was treated as an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, leading to the dismissal of the suit. The court emphasized the need for clear and detailed pleadings to establish an HUF, especially in light of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988. Consequently, the suit was dismissed, and parties were left to bear their own costs.