Delhi District Court
Raman Mehta vs . Maharaj Mehta on 23 September, 2014
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE-11, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
Suit No. 500/13
Raman Mehta Vs. Maharaj Mehta
23.09.2014
ORDER
This order shall dispose off the issue of maintainability raised in the present case. Both the Ld. Counsels have been heard. I have also perused the record.
2. Story is very simple. One Maharaj Kumar Mehta was adopted by Pandit Laxman Dass who owned a property and when the said Pandit Laxman Dass and his wife expired, the said Maharaj Kumar Mehta became absolute owner of the said property. Later on in certain proceeding, the said Maharaj Kumar Mehta entered into a compromise with some persons affecting his rights in the said property. The Plaintiffs are sons of the said Maharaj Kumar Mehta and has filed the present suit for declaration of the said compromise as void and for consequential injunction on the ground that Maharaj Kumar Mehta could not have affected the property as the plaintiffs were also having rights in the property as the property was ancestral. For batter appreciation of foundation of claim, paragraph 6 of the plaint may be quoted which is as under:-
"That the property bearing No. A-16, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi is ancestral property and not self acquired property of defendant No.1. Therefore, the plaintiffs who are sons of defendant No.1 also became co-owner of the ancestral property".
3. Now the only thing to be decided is the right of plaintiffs in the ancestral property. It seems that common myth of ancestral property is still prevailing in the general population.
4. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Neelam vs Sada Ram (2013) 197 DLT (CN) 52 Raman Mehta Vs. Maharaj Mehta 1 has held as under:
"However the popular misconception of "ancestral properties" continues to hold field, as is apparent from plethora of claims, even in courts, being made on the said premise."
5. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Premwati vs Bhagwati Devi MANU/DE/4784/2012 has held as under:
"I may note that unfortunately the defendants have not taken up either of these two basic pleas in the written statement of the suit being barred either on account of the Benami Act or on account of the fact that it is not pleaded that there exists an HUF between the parties. Since however the issue of Benami Act is a legal issue and issue with regard to existence of an HUF is an issue which only concerns reading of the plaint to find out whether the same contains the ingredients of cause of action, I have looked into both these aspects."
"Under the traditional Hindu Law if any male member of a family inherited any property from any of his three immediate paternal ancestors, the properties in his hands were HUF properties. After passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, this position has however ceased. After passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, if a male member receives any property from any of the three immediate ancestors, he receives the property as a self- acquired property and not as an HUF property. Only if the plaint contains averments that the property is inherited by a person prior to passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and therefore the property in fact has the character of an HUF property, would the properties be HUF properties and Raman Mehta Vs. Maharaj Mehta 2 that too provided that there are averments made in the plaint that the properties continue to be HUF properties and there existed an HUF which continued, otherwise, the suit would be barred......"
6. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Neelam vs Sada Ram (2013) 197 DLT (CN) 52 has held as under:
"The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 enacted more than half a century ago did away with the concept of ancestral properties, as existed prior thereto. After the coming into force thereof, the property inherited by a male from his father is held as self acquired property in which children of such male do not acquire any right by birth..........."
"Thus, the properties inherited by the grandfather of the plaintiffs on the demise of his own father in the year 1974, were held by him as his personal properties and in which his son i.e. the father of the plaintiffs did not acquire any share. Axiomatically, the question of the plaintiffs inheriting any such share on demise of their father does not arise."
7. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Neelam vs Sada Ram (2013) 197 DLT (CN) 52 has further held as under:
"A plea of the property being 'Joint Family Property' owing to being jointly owned by members of a family is not the plea of existence of a coparcenary or a HUF. The Supreme Court in Sathyaprema Manjunatha Gowda Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, Karnataka (1997) 10 SCC 684 held that even HUF & coparcenary are not one and the same under the Hindu law though for the purposes of taxation under the taxation laws are treated as one and the Raman Mehta Vs. Maharaj Mehta 3 same. The law of succession after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act is governed thereby only. Of course, Section 6 thereof carved out an exception qua interest held by the deceased in a Mitakshara coparcenary property and provides that such interest shall devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary and not in accordance with the Act. However, it is not the case of the plaintiff that there was any coparcenary of which their grandfather, his father and the plaintiff's father were a member. This Court recently in Premwati Vs. Bhagwati Devi MANU/DE/4784/2012 held that for a case for claiming a share in the property otherwise than under the Hindu Succession Act, it has to be pleaded that there existed an HUF since prior to coming into force of the Succession Act and which HUF by virtue of Section 6 of the Act has been permitted to continue. There is no such plea in the present case also."
8. Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Harvinder Singh Chadha vs Saran Kaur chadha FAO(OS) 416/2013 dated 01.07.2014 has reiterated the ratio of Neelam(supra) in following manner:
"We had invited the attention of the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff to a judgment dated 30th January, 2013 of one of us (Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw) in CS(OS) No.823/2010 titled Neelam Vs. Sada Ram, where on a conspectus of a case law in this regard including Chander Sen and Yudhishter supra it was held that after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the property inherited by a male from his father is held as self acquired property in which children of such male do not acquire any right by birth. Thus, even if it were to be held that the Model Town property, though purchased in the name of the father of the appellant/plaintiff was not his self acquired Raman Mehta Vs. Maharaj Mehta 4 property but held benami by him for his own father (and which plea of benami is also prohibited by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988), even then the grandfather of the appellant/plaintiff having died in the year 1969 i.e. after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, the said property would be held by the father of the appellant/plaintiff as his personal individual property and the appellant/plaintiff would not have any right or share therein. It would matter not that the said property was, besides in the name of the father of the appellant/plaintiff was also in the name of elder brother of the father of the appellant/plaintiff and the father of the appellant/plaintiff and his brother partitioned the same between them. Similarly, it would matter not that the father of the appellant/plaintiff and his brother paid off the share of their other siblings in the said property. These facts would not change the character of the inheritance in the hands of the father of the appellant/plaintiff from that of personal individual property to ancestral property."
9. Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sushant vs Sunder Shyam Singh RFA 27/2013 dated 07.11.2013 has observed as under:
"The legal position with regard to intestate succession under Hindu Law is well established. Prior to the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the moment a son was born he acquired a share in the father's property and became part of the co-parcenary. The property of the father became part of the Joint Hindu Family of his son and grandson and other members, who formed the Joint Hindu Family. This position was radically altered by the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956."
10. Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sushant vs Sunder Shyam Raman Mehta Vs. Maharaj Mehta 5 Singh RFA 27/2013 dated 07.11.2013 has further observed as under:
"Thus, as per the ratio of the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, the properties inherited by the grandfather of the Appellant/Plaintiff on the demise of his own father, were held by him as his personal properties and in which his son, i.e., the father of the Appellant/Plaintiff did not acquire any share. The question of the Appellant/Plaintiff inheriting any share from his grandfather, therefore, does not arise. The claim of the Appellant of the properties being ancestral properties in the hands of his grandfather is based only on the fact of the same being ancestral properties in the hands of his great grandfather and it is in this context that the Appellant has claimed them to be co-parcenary properties, though no foundation whatsoever has been laid in the plaint of any HUF being in existence at any point of time."
11. Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sushant vs Sunder Shyam Singh RFA 27/2013 dated 07.11.2013 has also observed as under:
"This Court has in a number of decisions, relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court (supra), has elaborated on this aspect of the matter and held that the Plaintiff in order to make out a case for a share in the property otherwise than under the Hindu Succession Act must plead that there existed a HUF since prior to the coming into force of the Succession Act and such HUF continues to exist."
12. Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sushant vs Sunder Shyam Singh RFA 27/2013 dated 07.11.2013 has also observed as under:
"Then again, it hardly needs reiteration that Hindu Undivided Family as a concept and co-parcenary are not Raman Mehta Vs. Maharaj Mehta 6 one and the same under the Hindu law. This aspect has been lucidly dealt with by the Supreme Court in the case of Sathyaprema Manjunatha Gowda (Smt.) v. Controller of Estate Duty, Karnataka, (1997) 10 SCC 684..."
13. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sangeeta Bhambani vs Jatinder Sardana CS(OS) 350/2012 dated 26.03.2014 has held as under:
"If Shri Uttam Sardana died after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, any properties even if inherited by Shri Chiranjiv Lal Sardana from his father Shri Uttam Sardana would be held by Shri Chiranjiv Lal Sardana as his individual properties and not for the benefit of his sons."
14. In view of the above it is clear that a son cannot claim any share in the property of his father even if the property had come in the hands of his father from the grandfather. In the present case as per pleading of plaintiff itself, the Maharaj Kumar Mehta had become the absolute owner of the property after the death of Pandit Laxman Dass and his wife. In such circumstances, Maharaj Kumar Mehta was fully capable of doing anything with the property and his son could not have claimed any right on the said property. Pertinently there is no averment in the plaint that the property was held by Maharaj Kumar Mehta as a co-parcenary property. In such circumstances, the plaintiffs cannot claim any right on the property. If they were not having any right in the property, they could not have prevented their father from doing anything. Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Harvinder Singh Chadha vs Saran Kaur chadha FAO(OS) 416/2013 dated 01.07.2014 has also held as under:
"We fail to understand as to on what basis the appellant/plaintiff, if not having any right of partition, because of not having any share in the property, can be said to have a right to prohibit his father from dealing with the property which was exclusively of the father."Raman Mehta Vs. Maharaj Mehta 7
15. Maharaj Kumar Mehta never filed any suit for declaration of compromise as void. The plaintiffs filed the present suit against several persons including their father Maharaj Kumar Mehta. In the absence of any right, the plaintiff cannot maintain the present suit.
16. Now we have to see as to what course should be adopted in such a situation.
17. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Puran Chand Oberoi vs Jitender Oberoi CS(OS) 189/2003 dated 15.10.2012 has held as under:
"In view of the above admitted facts and the position of law, this suit can be disposed of on the principles contained in Order XII Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) inasmuch as only the admitted contents of the plaint are being referred to."
18. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Premwati vs Bhagwati Devi MANU/DE/4784/2012 has held as under:
"As per the provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, a Court is entitled to pass judgment on the basis of admitted facts which emerge. As per Section 2(2) of the CPC decree includes dismissal of the suit. Order 12 Rule 6 CPC therefore can also be invoked on behalf of the defendants to seek dismissal of the suit on the basis of admitted averments which existed. The object of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is not to allow unnecessary trial in cases where the plaint admittedly does not make out the cause of action or the suit in fact is barred by law. It is not necessary that there has to be rigors of a trial in every case and that a litigant must undergo tribulations for long pendency of a suit running into decades. In view of the fact that the plaint fails to disclose any cause of action and is hit by the ratio of judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Commissioner of Wealth Tax (supra) and Yudhishter Raman Mehta Vs. Maharaj Mehta 8 (supra), as also the provisions of Section 4 of the Benami Act, the suit of the plaintiffs is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared."
19. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Babita vs Ravinder Verma RFA 86/2012 dated 14.02.2012 has held as under:
"In view of the above, though strictly the action of the trial Court of rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC may not be wholly correct, inasmuch as, it is really the suit that has to be dismissed on the admitted facts under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. A "decree" within the meaning of the said expression in Section 2(2) of CPC includes dismissal of the suit. The defendant therefore can very much file an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC to dismiss the suit on the basis of admitted facts, admitted documents and admitted pleadings. In the present case, on the basis of the facts, documents and pleadings, as admitted , it is clear that the trial Court was justified in passing the impugned judgment, however, though not under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC but as per the provision of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC."
20. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ravi Shankar Sharma vs Kali Ram Sharma CS(OS) 2329/1999 dated 07.09.2012 has held as under:
"As per the provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, a Court is entitled to decide the suit on the basis of admitted facts at any stage. The intendment of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is that litigants should not undergo rigours of long pendency of a case and tribulations of a trial if on the admitted facts the entitlement of the plaintiff to the reliefs is not made out. The salutary object under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is utilized in order to cut short such litigation which should no longer Raman Mehta Vs. Maharaj Mehta 9 remain pending. I may note that a decree as per Section 2(2) CPC includes dismissal of a suit and therefore the provision of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC applies even for dismissal of a suit which is also called a decree. xxxxxxxxxxxx I do not find it necessary to go into the defence as contained in the written statement of the bar of the suit on account of provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1985 as under
Order 12(6) I may only look at the admitted facts in the suit/plaint, and whether the case as set up entitles the plaintiff to the reliefs as claimed or not."
21. Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Kesav Chander Thakur vs Krishan Chander RFA(OS) 86/2013 dated 09.05.2014 has held as under:
"The scope of exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is limited by the contours of the provision. While exercising those powers what has to be seen is only the averments in the plaint and the documents filed alongwith the plaint. The defence as taken in the written statement is not to be gone into for the said purpose. To that extent, the judgment of the learned Single Judge may suffer from an infirmity. However, in our view given the nature of pleadings and admitted documents on record and the extensive arguments advanced by the parties on the issues discussed herein, this was a fit case for the Court to exercise powers under Order XII Rule 6 CPC where the Court has powers to suo moto pass a judgment. There is no requirement in Order XII Rule 6 CPC for filing of a formal application. The Court can on its own motion without any application by a party proceed to pass a decree on admissions as stated in Order XII Rule 6 CPC. Order XII Rule 6(i) CPC reads as follows:-Raman Mehta Vs. Maharaj Mehta 10
"6. Judgment on admissions.- (1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may thing fit, having regard to such admissions."
In our view based on the pleadings and documents placed on record by the parties there are clear admissions of fact which warrant passing of the order of dismissal of the plaint."
22. The Supreme Court in T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467 and in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Association Ltd. Vs. M.V. Sea Success I (2004) 9 SCC 512 and in ITC Limited Vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (1998) 2 SCC 70 has held that proceedings, of which there is no possibility of success and/or which are deadwood and are doomed should be shot down at the earliest stage and ought not to be permitted to clog the resources of the Court and at the cost of other deserving matters requiring the attention of the Courts and should not be allowed to be used as a device to harass.
23. The Supreme Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath AIR 1994 SC 853 has held that today the Courts are inundated by land grabbers, tax evaders and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life and time has come for the Courts to respond appropriately. Similarly, in Dalip Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2010) 2 SCC 114 it was held that to meet the challenge passed by the new creed of litigants who shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means, the Courts from time to time have to evolve new rules. Unless the Courts keep pace with the times and with the situations which they are called upon to meet today, the Courts would be failing in their duty. Hon'ble Mr. Bhagwati J. in Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs. Union of India 1984 (3) SCC 161 echoed the same sentiment by observing that in the center of a social order changing with dynamic pace, the Court needs to balance the authority of the past with the urges of the future.
Raman Mehta Vs. Maharaj Mehta 1124. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, an order under Order-12/Rule-6(1) CPC is passed directing the dismissal of the suit being not maintainable. Decree be prepared under Order-12/Rule-6(2) CPC.
Announced in the open court today on 23.09.2014 (Rakesh Kumar Singh) CJ-11/CENTRAL/DELHI 23.09.2014 Raman Mehta Vs. Maharaj Mehta 12