Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India, Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan dismissed an appeal challenging the dismissal of a suit for partition. The appeal had sought division of five properties claimed as ancestral by the appellant. The Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that earlier consensual decrees rendered the current suit legally untenable and barred by limitation.

The Court stated, "the decrees passed in Suits II, III and IV amount to a recognition and acceptance of the fact of partition between the parties prior to 20th December 2004. Consequently, the proviso to sub-Section 1 of amended Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is attracted to the present case and arguments advanced by Appellant-plaintiff and Respondent No.6 with respect to Section 6 are not applicable."

Also Read: Supreme Court : Insurer Liable For Fatal Trailer Mishap Pulled By Insured Tractor | Payment Ordered Within Two Months Under Root Cause Doctrine

The Court further recorded that the ownership of the Anand Niketan property was established through registered documents, which remained unchallenged for over three decades.

The present civil appeal arose from the final judgment of the Delhi High Court in RFA (OS) No. 51/2016, which affirmed the Single Judge's dismissal of CS (OS) No. 683/2007. The suit was originally filed by the appellant-plaintiff Saroj Salkan under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 seeking partition, injunction and accounts over five immovable properties claimed as ancestral, belonging to her late father, Major General Budh Singh. The properties included:

Agricultural land with farmhouse in Barota (approximately 72 acres)

1. 11 acres of agricultural land in Kalupur, Sonepat

2. 8 Bighas of Dairy Plot in Sonepat

3. Bhatgaon land (30 acres with houses, outhouses and orchard)

4. C-38, Anand Niketan, New Delhi

The appellant sought partition against her brother Anup Singh’s heirs and co-sharers. Her sister, Respondent No.6 (Sharda Hooda), supported her claims.

The learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissed the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC on the ground that admitted pleadings and documents indicated no cause of action. The Single Judge found that the plaint lacked sufficient particulars under Order VII Rule 1 and 3 CPC for Kalupur and Dairy Plot. Regarding Barota land, the Single Judge invoked Section 16 CPC, noting that the property lay outside Delhi and therefore jurisdiction lay with the Sonepat court. For the Anand Niketan property, the title stood in Anup Singh's name and was protected by Section 4(1) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act.

Appealing this decision, the appellant-plaintiff contended that the trial court erred in invoking Order XII Rule 6 without any application by defendants, and instead should have proceeded under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The appellant also claimed the properties were ancestral and fell within a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), entitling her to coparcenary rights post the 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act.

The appellant’s counsel, Mr. Dushyant Dave, submitted that the dismissal circumvented due trial and disregarded the retrospective operation of amended Section 6. He cited judgments including Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India and Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma.

The appellant also relied on four earlier civil suits decided between 1972 and 1985:

1. Suit I (No. 671/1 of 1972): Filed by the appellant, her sister, and minor nephews claiming Barota land was HUF property. The trial court decreed the suit, recognizing ownership in their names.

2. Suit II (No. 66/1977): Filed by Major General Budh Singh against the appellant and her sister to nullify the earlier decree in Suit I. The court passed a consensual decree declaring the decree in Suit I as a nullity.

3. Suit III (No. 219/1978): Filed by Anup Singh, son of Major General Budh Singh, against his father, asserting coparcenary rights over Barota land. The suit was decreed based on admissions.

4. Suit IV (No. 622/1984): Filed by Anup Singh’s sons against him over Anand Niketan house and other properties, alleging joint family ownership. The decree partitioned Anand Niketan property in a 2/3rd share in favor of the sons.

Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, counsel for Respondent No.6, argued that the prior suits recognized the HUF character of Barota and Bhatgaon lands, and that the admissions therein constituted binding acknowledgments.

Conversely, Mr. P.S. Patwalia, counsel for Respondent No.2, countered that no cause of action arose for Kalupur and Dairy Plot properties due to lack of description or revenue identification. He asserted that Barota land was awarded to Major General Budh Singh as a gallantry grant and was his self-acquired property. He submitted that the registered Will dated 03.11.1987 disposed of Barota land in favor of paternal grandsons.

Regarding Anand Niketan property, he argued that it was purchased in the name of Anup Singh in 1970 by a registered perpetual sub-lease and therefore fell outside the HUF framework. He further stated, "the effect of the four decrees was that the Appellant-plaintiff and Respondent No.6 stood ousted from all the properties of Late Major General Budh Singh."

Mr. Narendra Prabhakar, representing Respondent No.3, argued that the appellant erroneously presumed the existence of joint family properties without factual averments or evidence. He contended that mere familial ties and joint residence do not constitute HUF property unless specific facts and timelines of formation are provided.

The Division Bench, in its detailed reasoning, rejected the arguments that the suit was maintainable under amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. It stated, "The decrees passed in Suits II, III and IV amount to a recognition and acceptance of the fact of partition between the parties prior to 20th December 2004. Consequently, the proviso to sub-Section 1 of amended Section 6... is attracted... and arguments... are not applicable."

On jurisdiction, the Court observed, "with respect to which the case of the defendant is that late Gen. Budh Singh died leaving behind his Will... this suit land is situated at Sonepat, Haryana... the competent court at Sonepat, Haryana will have to be approached."

The Bench also held that Order XII Rule 6 CPC authorizes dismissal of suits on clear admissions of fact. Citing Rajiv Ghosh v. Satya Narayan Jaiswal, it affirmed that courts can act "on its own motion and without determination of any other question between the parties."

Regarding Barota land, the Court recorded that the plaintiff had admitted that the land was a wartime grant to Major General Budh Singh, thus constituting self-acquired property. The Bench recorded that "Appellant-plaintiff and Respondent No.6 had accepted their father as the absolute owner of Barota land. The effect of the decree in Suit II is that ownership of the entire Barota land stood reverted to Late Major General Budh Singh..."

With respect to Anand Niketan house, the Court held that the 1970 registered sub-lease deed in the name of Anup Singh had never been challenged and was thus conclusive. The Court noted, "the suit to the extent it challenges ownership of C-38, Anand Niketan house is barred by limitation."

Also Read: Elephants Have The Right To Live In Safe Environments | Karnataka High Court Orders Urgent Measures Against Electrocution And Wildlife Hazards

The Bench concluded that the earlier suits and resulting decrees were binding, and no pleadings in the fresh suit challenged their legal validity. The appellant had failed to plead or prove any formal act of throwing property into a common hotchpotch to create HUF status post-1956.

The Court dismissed the civil appeal, stating: "Keeping in view the aforesaid findings, this Court is of the view that the present appeal is devoid of any merit. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Shubhankar Sengupta, Advocate; Aarush Bhatia, Advocate; Anindita Mitra, Advocate-on-Record

For the Respondents: P.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate; Nidhesh Gupta, Senior Advocate; Narendra Prabhakar, Advocate

Case Title: Saroj Salkan v. Huma Singh & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 632

Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 6389 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 3756 of 2023)

Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Manmohan

[Read/Download order]