Delhi High Court
Master Sushant (Minor) vs Sh. Sunder Shyam Singh on 13 December, 2012
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
Bench: Valmiki J.Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) No.1240/2003
% December 13, 2012
MASTER SUSHANT (MINOR) ...... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. S.P. Dixit, Advocate.
VERSUS
SH. SUNDER SHYAM SINGH ..... Defendant
Through: Mr. S.C. Jain, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff- Master Sushant (minor) through his natural guardian and mother against his father Sh. Sunder Shyam Singh. The suit is a suit for partition and rendition of accounts. CS(OS) No.1240/2003 Page 1 of 4
2. As per the averments which have been made in the plaint, the plaintiff's father i.e the defendant received in his hands ancestral properties and therefore plaintiff becomes a coparcener and entitled to the share from the properties which have been inherited by the defendant-Sh. Sunder Shyam Singh from his father Sh. Joginder Singh. Admittedly, Sh. Joginder Singh/grandfather died on 14.11.1999.
3. Prior to passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 if any person inherited ancestral properties, the ancestral properties in his hands automatically were HUF properties and to which the successors by four degrees automatically took a share. However, after passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 merely because a person receives property from his paternal ancestors, the property in his hands is not an HUF property but the inheritance is as self-acquired property unless at the time of devolution there existed an HUF. The Supreme Court has specifically laid down this ratio in the judgments in the cases of Commissioner of Wealth Tax Etc. Vs. Chander Sen Etc. AIR 1986 SC 1753 and Yudhishter Vs. Ashok Kumar AIR 1987 SC 558 by observing that merely because a person who receives ancestral properties after passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the person who inherits will not receive the properties as HUF CS(OS) No.1240/2003 Page 2 of 4 properties but as self-acquired properties i.e ancestral properties did not automatically have the stamp of HUF properties. The only exception would be if a person after receiving self-acquired properties, he creates an HUF and in which case the members of the HUF including the sons would have rights to the HUF properties.
4. In the present case, since the only averments which are mentioned in the plaint are with respect to inheritance of the properties by the defendant i.e the father of the plaintiff from the grandfather of the plaintiff as ancestral properties, it cannot be said that the plaintiff can have any rights to the properties inherited by the defendant from his own father inasmuch as inheritance of properties by the defendant from his ancestors will only make the properties in the hands of the defendant as self-acquired properties and not HUF properties in view of the ratio of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Commissioner of Wealth Tax Etc. (supra) and Yudhishter (supra).
5. Accordingly, on the admitted facts contained in the plaint, the plaintiff has no legal right to sue. The plaint since does not disclose a cause of action, the same is therefore rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Parties are left to bear their own costs. CS(OS) No.1240/2003 Page 3 of 4
6. Since the suit stands disposed of, all the pending applications also stand disposed of.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J DECEMBER 13, 2012 Ne CS(OS) No.1240/2003 Page 4 of 4