[Cause of Action Requirement] A plaint must disclose a cause of action; bald averments without essential pleadings regarding existence of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) are insufficient. (Paras 11, 19–20)

advocatemmmohan

Delhi High Court

[Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Scope] Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC cannot be used to adjudicate disputed facts; rejection of plaint must be based only on plaint averments. (Paras 8–11)

[Cause of Action Requirement] A plaint must disclose a cause of action; bald averments without essential pleadings regarding existence of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) are insufficient. (Paras 11, 19–20)

[Self‑Acquired Property vs. HUF Property] Property acquired by a male Hindu after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 does not automatically become HUF property; it remains individual property unless thrown into common hotchpot. (Paras 15, 18–20)

[Supreme Court Precedents]

• CWT v. Chander Sen (1986) 3 SCC 567: Property devolving under Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act is inherited in individual capacity, not as HUF. (Paras 16–18)

• Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar (1987) 1 SCC 204: Post‑1956, inherited property is not HUF property vis‑à‑vis sons. (Paras 17–18)

[Mutation and Ownership] Mutation in favour of Defendant No. 1 establishes her as absolute owner of the suit property, being sole surviving legal heir of late Sh. Pradeep Kumar Mittal. (Paras 5–6)

[Plaintiffs’ Locus Standi] Plaintiffs, being heirs of late Sh. Praveen Kumar Mittal, cannot claim partition in property of late Sh. Pradeep Kumar Mittal; they already inherited assets of their own predecessor. (Paras 6–7)

[Existence of HUF – Pleading Requirement] Mere assertion of HUF existence without pleading source of funds, throwing into hotchpot, or ancestral inheritance prior to 1956, does not establish HUF. (Paras 18–20)

[Principle of Tenants‑in‑Common] Section 19 of Hindu Succession Act mandates heirs succeeding together take property as tenants‑in‑common, not joint tenants, further negating automatic HUF character. (Para 19)

[Rejection of Plaint] Since plaint failed to disclose cause of action and lacked material particulars establishing HUF, rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was justified. (Paras 20–21)