2015 (11) TMI 1831 - HC - Indian Laws

Suit for partition and rendition of accounts - Whether the suit properties as detailed in Schedule-A to the plaint are liable to be partitioned and if so what would be the share of the parties? - HELD THAT - Plaintiffs thus have failed to prove that there existed an HUF before 1956 on account of Sh. Tek Chand having inherited properties before 1956 and that the plaintiffs have further failed to prove that HUF was created after 1956 on account of throwing of property/properties into common hotchpotch either by Sh. Tek Chand or by Sh. Gugan Singh/defendant no.1. Accordingly it is held that there is no HUF and there are no properties of HUF in which late Sh. Harvinder Sejwal had a share. The entire discussion given above for existence/creation of HUF and plaintiffs failing to discharge the onus of proof upon them will similarly apply qua the alleged family settlement pleaded by the plaintiffs because once again no credible evidence has been led except self-serving statements and which cannot be taken as discharge of the onus. In his cross-examination on 01.04.2013 the defendant no.3 as DW1 has denied the suggestion that there was any family settlement. It is therefore held that plaintiffs have failed to prove the issues. Both the issues are decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs the plaintiffs are not entitled to the reliefs of partition or rendition of accounts - Suit dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit properties are liable to be partitioned and the share of the parties.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to rendition of accounts.
3. Relief.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the suit properties are liable to be partitioned and the share of the parties:

The plaintiffs, sons of late Sh. Harvinder Sejwal, claimed that the properties listed in para 15 of the plaint were Joint Hindu Family (HUF) properties and sought partition. They argued that these properties were purchased from the funds generated from the sale of ancestral property no. 93, Village Adhichini, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. The defendants contested this claim, denying the properties were HUF properties and asserting they were self-acquired by defendant no.1, Sh. Gugan Singh.

The court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Yudhishter Vs. Ashok Kumar, which clarified that post-1956, properties inherited under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, are self-acquired unless an HUF existed before 1956 or was created by throwing the property into a common hotchpotch. The plaintiffs failed to provide evidence of the existence of an HUF before 1956 or the creation of an HUF post-1956. The court noted that Sh. Tek Chand, the grandfather, died in 1982, and thus, properties inherited by Sh. Gugan Singh in 1982 were self-acquired. The court concluded that the plaintiffs did not prove the existence of an HUF or that the properties were HUF properties, dismissing the claim for partition.

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to rendition of accounts:

The plaintiffs sought rendition of accounts, claiming a 1/5th share in the suit properties. However, since the court determined that the properties were not HUF properties and no HUF existed, the plaintiffs were not entitled to any share in the properties. The court noted that the plaintiffs' claims were based on self-serving statements without credible documentary evidence. Thus, the plaintiffs failed to prove their entitlement to rendition of accounts.

3. Relief:

Given the decisions on issues 1 and 2, the plaintiffs were not entitled to the reliefs of partition or rendition of accounts. The suit was dismissed, and each party was left to bear their own costs. The court emphasized the necessity of credible evidence to support claims of HUF properties and the insufficiency of oral statements in such cases. The decree sheet was ordered to be drawn accordingly.