Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Faced with the aforesaid judgment and order, learned counsel for plaintiffs drew this Court's attention to paragraph 19 of the plaint to contend that present suit for partition was not based on the fact that suit property was ancestral but premised on the basis that suit property was a coparcenary property. Paragraph 19 of the plaint is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"19. That as is evident from the terms of the aforesaid judgment, although the Suit property has been treated as a co-parcenery property i.e. HUF property this Hon‟ble Court has on the basis of amended Sec. 6 of the Hindu Succession Act held Smt. Sugandha Sethi entitled to 1/3rd share in the Suit property. It is however respectfully submitted that Sec. 6 of Hindu Succession Act as amended vide the 2005 amendment would have no application to partition of the Suit property since the succession opened in the year 1990 i.e. upon the demise of Sh. Bipan Chand Puri. Further, in any event, the effect of Sec. 6 of the Hindu Succession Act is only that the daughter of a coparcener acquires an interest in his share in the joint family property upon his demise. It does not divest the other members of the coparcenary of their respective shares. Thus, in view of Sec. 6 of the Hindu Succession Act as amended vide the 2005 amendment, Smt. Sugandha Sethi acquired an equal right in the share of her father vis-a-vis her brothers. However, the other members of the coparcenary who had acquired their rights in the Suit property by birth, including the Plaintiffs herein, were not divested of their rights in the Suit property."

22. Thus, it was the half-share in the property of Babu Ram, which would devolve upon all his heirs and legal representatives as at least one of his sons was born prior to coming into force of the Act."

(emphasis supplied)

12. This Court is also of the view that the present suit is another attempt to go behind the consensual preliminary decree in CS(OS) 136/2009 inasmuch as once again averments in para 19 of the present plaint have been made to the effect that Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act as amended by 2005 amendment would have no application to the present suit since succession opened in the year 1990 that means upon demises of plaintiffs' grandfather i.e. Mr. Bipin Chand Puri.

13. In any event, a similar argument of coparcenery was rejected by another learned Single Judge of this Court in CS(OS) 2954/2011 filed by plaintiffs' first cousin i.e. defendant no.4. The relevant observations of the learned Single Judge are reproduced hereinbelow:-

"20. After having gone through the contents of the plaint as well as the averments made in the application, I am of the considered view that the application filed by defendant No.1 Smt. Sugandha Sethi is liable to be allowed for the following reasons as the suit filed by Sugam Puri is barred by law:

a) A preliminary decree in the CS(OS) No.136/2009 was passed on 30.07.2010. The main allegation of the plaintiff Sh. Sugam Puri is that the property of his grandfather Sh.

Bipan Chand Puri was ancestral property. He along with his two sons constituted co-parcenary and the father and two sons under Hindu law became entitled 1/3rd share. However, the plaintiff does not challenge the finding of this Court or admission of the parties that there had been no partition. In view of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as it was substituted in 2005, the position of Smt. Sugandha Sethi would be that she is entitled to 1/3rd share which cannot disputed under these circumstances........"