The Supreme Court of India has dismissed the appeal filed by Saroj Salkan challenging the rejection of her partition suit concerning properties allegedly owned by her late father, Major General Budh Singh. The Court upheld the Delhi High Court’s judgment and ruled that the dismissal of the suit under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was legally tenable. The Court held that there was no sufficient pleading regarding the existence of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and that previous uncontested declaratory decrees had conclusively settled the ownership of the disputed properties.
Background:
The appellant, Saroj Salkan, filed a partition suit in 2007 under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, seeking division and accounting of five properties allegedly forming part of a HUF established by her late father, Major General Budh Singh. The properties included land in Barota and Bhatgaon (Sonepat), Kalupur land, a dairy plot, and a house in Anand Niketan, New Delhi.
The suit was dismissed by the Single Judge of the Delhi High Court under Order XII Rule 6 CPC without framing issues, a decision later affirmed by the Division Bench on 15 November 2022.
Appellant’s Submissions:
Senior Advocate Mr. Dushyant Dave, appearing for the appellant, argued that dismissal under Order XII Rule 6 CPC was impermissible without an application from the defendants and that only Order VII Rule 11 CPC could apply. He emphasised that the plaint demonstrated the existence of a HUF and referenced earlier suits allegedly acknowledging the HUF structure. He contended that decrees passed in earlier suits were collusive and aimed at defeating land ceiling laws.
Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, counsel for co-appellant (Respondent No.6, the appellant’s sister), argued that admissions in earlier suits demonstrated that properties like Barota and Anand Niketan were ancestral and that they should not have been ousted from the HUF without a trial.
Respondents’ Arguments:
Senior Advocate Mr. P.S. Patwalia, representing Respondent No.2, contended that there were no precise pleadings or property details concerning Kalupur and dairy plots. He argued that the appellant had, in effect, abandoned claims to several properties. He also relied on four prior declaratory decrees (1972 to 1984) which demonstrated that the properties were not part of any HUF and that ownership was conclusively settled in favour of others, including Anup Singh and his sons.
It was further submitted that Barota land was granted to Major General Budh Singh as a gallantry award and was, therefore, self-acquired. Anand Niketan house had been transferred by a registered lease deed to Anup Singh in 1970, and its ownership had never been challenged within the limitation period.
Supreme Court’s Analysis:
The Court, comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan, held that:
“Order 12, R. 6 of Code gives a very wide discretion to the Court… Under this rule the Court may at any stage of the suit either on the application of any party or of its own motion… pass such judgment as it may think fit on the basis of admission of a fact…”
The Court ruled that prior declaratory decrees conclusively established that the properties, particularly at Barota and Anand Niketan, had been treated as self-acquired and were already partitioned or transferred. The appellant and her sister, being party to the previous suits or aware of them, were bound by those judgments and could not re-litigate settled issues decades later.
Regarding Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act (amended in 2005), the Court held:
“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…”
Thus, the statutory rights under the amended Section 6 could not revive rights extinguished by pre-2004 partitions.
Conclusion:
Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that a suit can be dismissed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC on the Court’s own motion based on pleadings and admissions. The earlier decrees, lack of detailed pleadings regarding HUF formation, and barred claims under the Limitation Act led to the Court concluding that the partition suit had no merit.
“The suit contains half-baked facts… The initiation thereof by appellant is a gross abuse of the process of law… The learned Single Judge has rightly exercised his powers under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code by nipping it in the bud.”
