The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal seeking the rejection of a partition suit at the threshold, ruling that a previous compromise decree entered into by the plaintiff’s father does not automatically bar a daughter’s independent claim for coparcenary rights under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
The Bench, comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, upheld the Single Judge’s decision in the case of Sanjay Gupta v. Sonakshi Gupta and Ors. (FAO(OS) 37/2025), observing that the issues raised by the appellant involved factual disputes that could only be determined after a trial.
Case Background
The appeal arose from a civil suit (CS(OS) 1965/2012) filed by the Respondent No. 1, Ms. Sonakshi Gupta, seeking partition, rendition of accounts, and injunction regarding the properties of the “L.R. Gupta HUF”.
The Plaintiff asserted that she is a coparcener in the Joint Hindu Family by virtue of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (as amended in 2005). She claimed that her cause of action arose on September 9, 2005, when the amendment came into force, and further accrued upon her attaining majority on May 18, 2009. She alleged that the defendants were selling and alienating HUF properties without her consent and had refused her demand for partition in November 2011 and March 2012.
The Appellant, Mr. Sanjay Gupta (Defendant No. 2 in the suit), along with other defendants, had filed applications under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking the rejection of the plaint. They argued that the suit was barred by law and disclosed no cause of action.
Arguments of the Parties
The Appellant’s Contentions: Senior Advocate Mr. Manish Vashisht, appearing for the Appellant, argued that the dispute between the family branches had already been settled. He relied on a compromise decree dated January 9, 2006, passed in a previous suit (CS 1968/2003), which recorded that the family branches had separated as far back as 1993.
The Appellant contended:
- The present suit was “nothing but a collateral challenge” to the 2006 decree, engineered by the Plaintiff’s father through his children.
- Even if the Plaintiff is a coparcener in her father’s HUF, she cannot maintain a claim against the larger “L.R. Gupta HUF” which had ceased to exist.
- The suit was barred by law under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC as it sought to reopen settled issues without directly challenging the 2006 decree.
The Appellant relied on several Supreme Court judgments, including K Akbar Ali v. K Umar Khan and Rohit Chauhan v. Surinder Singh, to support the plea for rejection of the plaint.
The Respondent’s Contentions: Counsel for the Plaintiff/Respondent No. 1 supported the impugned judgment, arguing:
- The 2006 compromise decree was inter se between her father and other defendants and did not bind her as she was a minor at the time and not a party to it.
- She has an independent statutory right as a coparcener under the amended Hindu Succession Act.
- The continued acts of alienation and construction by the defendants gave rise to “successive and continuing causes of action.”
- The objections raised by the Appellant constituted triable issues that could not be decided summarily under Order VII Rule 11.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Division Bench examined the scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, reiterating that the power to reject a plaint at the threshold is limited and must be exercised based on a “meaningful, but not a hyper-technical, reading of the plaint as a whole.”
On Cause of Action: The Court observed that paragraph 68 of the plaint detailed the circumstances giving rise to the claim, including the enforcement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, the Plaintiff attaining majority, and the specific refusals by defendants to partition the property.
The Court held:
“For the limited purpose of Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC, the plaint does disclose a cause of action, and the learned Single Judge was correct in so holding.”
On the 2006 Compromise Decree: Addressing the Appellant’s primary argument that the suit was a collateral challenge to the 2006 decree, the Court noted that the Plaintiff was not a party to that settlement.
“The Plaintiff was not a party to the compromise decree dated 09.01.2006, which adjudicated disputes inter se her father and the other defendants. At that point in time, she was a minor, and therefore it was not necessary for her to seek annulment of a decree that may not bind her.”
The Bench further clarified that since the Plaintiff sought partition—a relief larger in scope than a mere declaration—a specific prayer to annul the 2006 decree under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, was “not indispensable.”
On Judicial Precedents: The Court distinguished the judgments cited by the Appellant:
- Re: K Akbar Ali: The Court found that unlike cases of “artificial pleadings,” the plaint in this case contained specific factual assertions regarding dates and acts of alienation that required adjudication.
- Re: Rohit Chauhan: The Court held that whether the “L.R. Gupta HUF” subsisted or whether properties were coparcenary were matters of evidence.
“At this preliminary stage, it would be wholly inappropriate to reject the plaint in the face of such factual disputes.”
Decision
The Court concluded that the Appellant’s pleas related to the defence and triable issues, which fall outside the ambit of Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Dismissing the appeal, the Division Bench held:
“The jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, being a drastic power to terminate proceedings at the threshold, cannot be invoked where the plaint discloses a cause of action requiring adjudication.”
Case Details:
- Case Title: Sanjay Gupta v. Sonakshi Gupta and Ors.
- Case Number: FAO(OS) 37/2025
- Coram: Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
