Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2017 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1814 - DELHI HIGH COURTPartition of property - amendment of plaint by laying a challenge to the sale of the property at Faridabad on the plea that being property of the HUF, defendant No.1 could not sell the same without the consent of the other coparceners - whether actionable pleadings have been made in the plaint qua the claim? - HELD THAT:- In Chander Sen's case [1986 (7) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT ], the Supreme Court held that after the promulgation of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the traditional view under the Hindu Law no longer remained the legal position. This decision was followed incase (supra) the Supreme Court held that after the promulgation of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the traditional view under the Hindu Law no longer remained the legal position. In the present case, the pleadings by the appellant is only to the effect that the property at Rajinder Nagar was purchased by the grandfather of the appellant from out of the funds of the firm M/s Gian Singh Sukhdev Singh which was set up by the late grandfather of the appellant and that the funds for the business came from the properties left behind in Pakistan. No details or particulars of the properties left behind at Pakistan have been pleaded. We take judicial notice of the fact that post-partition, people who migrated to India from the territories of the newly State of Pakistan were required to file claims before the custodian of evacuee properties and upon proof of properties left behind in Pakistan, compensations were assessed. These people were treated as refugees and either money or an immovable property was allotted to these refugees by the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India. In the plaint the lack of pleadings to said effect cannot be overlooked. The positive statements required by law to be pleaded in the plaint regarding constitution of an HUF are missing as has been rightly held by the learned Single Judge - We concur with the view taken that the plaint does not disclose an actionable cause of action and we supplement by recording that the proposed amendment of the plaint does not improve this lack of actionable pleading. Appeal dismissed.
|