Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Partition Suit: Saroj Salkan vs. Huma Singh (2025)

Date of the Judgment: May 06, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 632
Judges: Sanjay Karol, J., Manmohan, J.

Can previous court decrees prevent a daughter from claiming her share in ancestral property after the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Saroj Salkan vs. Huma Singh, a property partition dispute. The court examined whether prior legal proceedings and admissions made by the parties barred the appellant from claiming partition of certain properties. Justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan, in a recent judgment, upheld the dismissal of the partition suit, finding that previous decrees and consensual partitions among family members barred the appellant’s claim.

Case Background

The case revolves around a partition suit filed by Saroj Salkan, the appellant, seeking partition, injunction, and accounts of five properties originally held by her father, Late Major General Budh Singh. The suit was filed against the legal heirs of her brother, Anup Singh, and her sister, Sharda Hooda, who supported her claim. The five properties in question were:

• ✓ Barota Land (approximately 72 acres with a farmhouse)
• ✓ Agricultural land – 11 acres at Kalupur, Sonepat
• ✓ 8 Bigha of Dairy Plot at Sonepat
• ✓ Bhatgaon Land (30 acres of houses, outhouses, and orchard)
• ✓ C-38, Anand Niketan, New Delhi

The dispute arose after the death of Major General Budh Singh on November 8, 1988, and subsequently, his son Anup Singh on August 18, 1989. The appellant claimed a share in the properties based on the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, particularly its amended Section 6, arguing that the properties were part of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The partition suit was initially dismissed by the learned Single Judge under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), citing a lack of cause of action based on admitted pleadings and documents. The Single Judge noted that the plaintiff failed to provide adequate details of the properties in question and did not establish the existence of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) prior to 1956. The challenge to a 1977 decree was also deemed barred by limitation, and the suit concerning the Anand Niketan property was barred by the Benami Act.

The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the Single Judge’s decision, noting the appellant’s failure to address fundamental issues of pleadings and limitation. The Division Bench observed that the appellant did not present sufficient arguments or case laws to counter the reasons for the suit’s dismissal.

Legal Framework

The legal framework relevant to this case includes:

• ✓ Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: This section deals with the devolution of interest in coparcenary property. The 2005 amendment to this section grants daughters equal rights as sons in the ancestral property.
• ✓ Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): This rule allows a court to deliver judgment based on admissions made by a party in the pleadings or otherwise.
• ✓ Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC: This rule outlines the grounds for rejecting a plaint, such as when it does not disclose a cause of action.
• ✓ Section 16 of the CPC: This section specifies that suits related to immovable property must be filed in the court within whose jurisdiction the property is situated.
• ✓ Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963: This article prescribes the limitation period for challenging decrees or instruments.
• ✓ Section 4(1) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act: This section prohibits suits to enforce rights in property held benami (in the name of another person).

The Supreme Court considered how these provisions interact, particularly in the context of claims arising after the amendment of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• ✓ Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel for the appellant, argued that the High Court erred in dismissing the suit under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC. He contended that the plaint could only be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
• ✓ He asserted that the Single Judge could not dismiss the suit suo moto (on its own motion) under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC without an application from the respondents.
• ✓ Mr. Dave emphasized that the plaint clearly disclosed the existence of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) of Late Major General Budh Singh prior to 1956, owning ancestral properties.
• ✓ He referred to four previous suits among the parties regarding the five properties, arguing that these suits acknowledged the HUF nature of the properties.
• ✓ Mr. Dave highlighted that the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, has retroactive application, entitling daughters to an equal share in ancestral properties.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• ✓ Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for Respondent No. 2, argued that no cause of action arose for properties at Kalupur, Bhatgaon, and the dairy plot in Sonepat, as they either do not exist or lack proper descriptions in the plaint.
• ✓ He pointed out that the appellant had conceded her claim regarding the Barota land in written submissions before the Division Bench.
• ✓ Mr. Patwalia contended that the Barota land was a gallantry award to Late Major General Budh Singh, making it his self-acquired property, not HUF property.
• ✓ He stated that the Anand Niketan house was transferred to Anup Singh via a registered perpetual sub-lease deed in 1970.
• ✓ Mr. Patwalia emphasized that the appellant failed to provide details on how and when the self-acquired property was thrown into the coparcenary property.

Respondent No. 6’s Submissions:

• ✓ Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel for Respondent No. 6, argued that admissions in Suit IV by Shri Sanjiv Singh and Shri Rajiv Singh against Anup Singh stated that the joint family owned ancestral properties in Bhatgaon and Akbarpur Barota.
• ✓ He submitted that Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 admitted in their written statement that the Bhatgaon property was ancestral and that the Anand Niketan plot was purchased with the proceeds from its sale.
• ✓ Mr. Gupta contended that Suit II was filed to reverse revenue entries in favor of the appellant and Respondent No. 6.
• ✓ He argued that the appellant and Respondent No. 6 should have been given an opportunity to explain the alleged admissions in Suit II during the trial.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following key issues:

1. Whether the learned Single Judge could have dismissed the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC alone and not under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and that too without any application being filed by the Respondents.
2. Effect of four decrees passed by different parties to this litigation between 1971 and 1984.
3. Whether Respondent No.6 can contend that Barota is owned by HUF/ Coparcenary.
4. Whether amended Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is applicable.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

• ✓ Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. V. United Bank of India 2000 (7) SCC 120: Regarding the object and scope of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.
• ✓ Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil vs. K. Madan Mohan Rao 2023 SCC OnLine SC 871: Regarding the interpretation of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.
• ✓ Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma and Ors. (2020) 9 SCC 1: Regarding the retroactive application of the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
• ✓ ITDC Limited vs. Chander Pal Sood and Son, (2000) 84 DLT 337 (DB): Regarding the wide discretion given to the Court under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
• ✓ Rajiv Ghosh vs. Satya Naryan Jaiswal, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.9975 of 2025 dated 07th April, 2025: Regarding the authorization of the Court to not only pass a decree regarding admitted claim, but also to dismiss the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
• ✓ Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes & Ors v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (D) Tr. Lrs. & Ors. 2012 (5) SCC 370: Regarding the requirement of sufficient details in pleadings for the Court to frame issues.
• ✓ Kalyani (Dead) by LRs. vs. Narayanan, 1980 Supp SCC 298: Regarding the formation of a distinct and separate corporate unit within the larger corporate family.

Authorities Table

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision. The Court reasoned that:

• ✓ The Single Judge was authorized to dismiss the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, as this rule gives the court wide discretion to pass judgment based on admissions made by the parties.
• ✓ The appellant and Respondent No. 6 were bound by the decrees passed in previous suits, which had settled the ownership of the Barota land in favor of Late Major General Budh Singh.
• ✓ Respondent No. 6 was estopped from claiming that the Barota property was owned by a coparcenary/HUF, as she had purchased and sold part of the land.
• ✓ The amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was not applicable, as the decrees in the previous suits amounted to a recognition and acceptance of the fact of partition between the parties prior to December 20, 2004.
• ✓ The suit challenging the ownership of the Anand Niketan house was barred by limitation.

Treatment of Submissions by the Court

View of Authorities by the Court

The Supreme Court utilized the cited authorities to support its reasoning:

• ✓ Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. V. United Bank of India [CITATION]* was used to reinforce the interpretation and application of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, emphasizing the court’s power to deliver swift judgments based on clear admissions.
• ✓ Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma and Ors. [CITATION]* was referenced to clarify the retroactive implications of the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, but ultimately deemed inapplicable due to the prior recognition of partition.
• ✓ ITDC Limited vs. Chander Pal Sood and Son, [CITATION]* supported the Court’s view on the wide discretionary powers conferred by Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

What Weighed in the Mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• ✓ The binding nature of prior decrees and admissions made by the parties in earlier suits.
• ✓ The conduct of Respondent No. 6 in purchasing and selling part of the Barota land, which contradicted her claim of it being HUF property.
• ✓ The recognition of a partition among the family members prior to December 20, 2004, which rendered the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, inapplicable.

Sentiment Analysis Ranking

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Issue: Whether the learned Single Judge could have dismissed the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC alone and not under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and that too without any application being filed by the Respondents.

Logical Reasoning:

Issue: Effect of four decrees passed by different parties to this litigation between 1971 and 1984.

Logical Reasoning:

Issue: Whether Respondent No.6 can contend that Barota is owned by HUF/ Coparcenary.

Logical Reasoning:

Issue: Whether amended Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is applicable.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court’s reasoning emphasized the importance of upholding prior legal settlements and preventing parties from challenging long-standing arrangements without sufficient cause.

Key quotes from the judgment include:

• ✓ “Order 12, R. 6 of Code gives a very wide discretion to the Court… can make such order giving such judgment as it may think fit on the basis of admission of a fact made in the pleadings or otherwise whether orally or in writing.”
• ✓ “…the issue of ownership in favour of late General has already been settled way back on 08.03.1977, which has neither been challenged nor set aside or modified or appealed by anyone much less the appellant before us.”
• ✓ “The decrees passed in Suits II, III and IV amount to a recognition and acceptance of the fact of partition between the parties prior to 20th December 2004.”

Key Takeaways

The key takeaways from this judgment are:

• ✓ Prior court decrees and admissions can significantly impact claims to ancestral property, especially after amendments to succession laws.
• ✓ Courts have wide discretion under Order XII Rule 6 CPC to pass judgments based on admissions.
• ✓ The amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, may not apply if a partition has been recognized prior to December 20, 2004.

This decision reinforces the importance of challenging decrees and revenue entries promptly and highlights the binding nature of admissions made in legal proceedings.