The Plaintiff sought partition and declaration regarding ancestral property, claiming coparcenary rights under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. The Court held the suit unmaintainable because the plaint failed to aver that the joint Hindu family existed before 1956 or was created thereafter. The suit was dismissed with liberty.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~18
PREETI CHOUDHARY ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. A.K. Rajput, Advocate. versus
KULDEEP SINGH & ORS. ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, Mr Varun Mehlawat, Advs for D-1 to 4 (M.9873486348)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
O R D E R
% 05.04.2024
CS(OS) 563/2022
Page 1 of 3
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2024 at 11:53:00
coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son. Thereby, the claim of the Plaintiff in the present case, is that she being a descendent of late Sh. Jaswant Singh, is a co-parcener in a joint Hindu family and as such, has equal right and interest qua the suit property, which is ancestral in nature.
“3. It has been put to the counsel for the plaintiff whether the present suit is maintainable in view of the judgment of this Court in Sh. Surender Kumar v. Sh. Dhani Ram and Ors., AIR 2016 Del 120.
4. Counsel for the plaintiff seeks time to examine this aspect.
5. At request, list on November, 2022.
6. Liberty is given to the plaintiff to place additional documents on record.”
CS(OS) 563/2022
Page 2 of 3
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2024 at 11:53:00
that if the Plaintiff is not able to satisfy the Court with regard to the maintainability of the suit, the present suit would liable to be dismissed. Relevant portion of the said order is hereinunder:
“5. On the next date, if the Plaintiff does not satisfy as to the maintainability of the suit, the suit would be liable to be dismissed.”
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
APRIL 5, 2024/ dj/rks
(corrected & released on 10th April, 2024)
CS(OS) 563/2022
Page 3 of 3
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2024 at 11:53:00
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the suit is maintainable given the plaintiff's failure to plead that the joint Hindu family existed prior to 1956 or was created post-1956.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sh. Surender Kumar v. Sh. Dhani RamReferred¶21
Sh. Surender Kumar v. Sh. Dhani Ram and Ors., AIR 2016 Del 120 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Prathiba M. Singh
As recorded by the court registry
A civil suit filed on the original side of a High Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
