The Delhi High Court’s division bench overruled a previous decision made by the lower court dismissing a partition suit brought by a female coparcener due to the traditional right of inheritance being bestowed upon daughters as equal coparceners, according to the Succession Laws of Hindu (Hindu Succession Act, 1956). The Delhi High Court division bench consisting of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar confirmed the original ruling of the single judge and denied any request by the appellant (Ms. Sonakshi Gupta) to appeal this dismissal prior to placing the matter before the court.
History of the Legal Issue
The legal issue originated from civil suit CS(OS) 1965/2012 filed by Ms. Sonakshi Gupta against the L.R. Gupta HUF. Ms. Gupta was seeking to partition the property of the L.R. Gupta HUF, obtain an accounting of the property, and obtain an injunction against the HUF regarding its property.
Ms. Gupta claimed her right to bring her case was based upon coparcenary status that was conferred upon her by section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [as amended in 2005]. She stated her “cause of action arose” when the Hindu Succession Act was amended, creating her coparcener rights and creating an ability for her to sue when the Hindu Succession Act was amended on September 9, 2005, and also when she turned 18 (May 18, 2009).
Ms. Gupta also asserted that her father and sister were transferring and selling property belonging to the HUF without her consent, which caused her to need to seek for partition twice (November 2011 and March 2012), and both of these requests were denied.
Rejection Attempt Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
The Court was presented with rejection applications under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) brought by the Defendants through Mr. Sanjay Gupta on the basis that the plaint does not raise a cause of action or has been instituted outside the statutory limitations for suit.
The following are Some Points Raised by the Appellant’s Argument:
1. The matter has been previously resolved by way of a compromise decree dated in the year 2006 against all parties in a prior suit (CS 1968/2003) that recorded the separation of the various branches of the family being separated as of the year 1993;
2. The current suit is considered to be a collateral attack on the binding decree from the year 2006;
3. The Appellant argues that the larger ‘L.R. Gupta’ Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) no longer exists; therefore, the Daughter cannot claim as a coparcener against the larger now-separated family.
4. Therefore, the Appellant has requested that the Court reject the suit under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, as it raises issues that have already been settled
Counterarguments filed by Respondent:
1. As the plaintiff was a minor and not a party to the 2006 Compromise Decree, she is not bound by it.
2. Plaintiff has an independent statutory right as a coparcener granted by the 2005 Amendment.
3. The defendants’ acts of alienation/construction are ongoing and represent continuing/successive causes of action.
4. The objections raised in this case are triable issues (e.g., existence of HUF, validity of the separation) that cannot be summarily decided within the limited scope of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
Court’s Rationale and Ruling
The reasoning and judgment of the High Court in Delhi are as follows:
- Firstly, Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) gives the Court the power to dismiss a case based on certain grounds very cautiously, and it is to be used very rarely.
- Secondly, the Court noted that a “cause of action” is a legal right that requires its existence and was disclosed by the Plaintiff in her pleadings as the existence of her statutory right, when it accrued, and all the relevant details regarding the unauthorized acts of alienation carried out by the Defendants.
- Thirdly, the 2006 Compromise Decree is a document binding only on the parties to it, namely the Plaintiff’s father and the Defendants in their private and unofficial capacity, and as a minor, it cannot have any effect on the Plaintiff.
- Fourthly, the Court held that because the Plaintiff was mainly seeking a partition, her request was broader, and therefore, a suit for partition did not have to be preceded by a suit for declaration challenging the 2006 decree under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, in order for it to be valid.
- Fifthly, the Court found that there were potential factual disputes in relation to the existence of either a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) or the existence of a coparcenary property, and those factual issues could only be established through the presentation of evidence and cannot be decided simply by way of an initial pleading.
The Division Bench ultimately confirmed that the principle of “the jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC cannot be exercised to terminate a lawsuit without having first established that the lawsuit has a legitimate cause of action” is in line with the decisional law of the State Courts. In particular, this decision has the benefit of confirming the position that the independent and overriding coparcenary rights of daughters as provided for under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, cannot be completely denied by the reliance upon prior settlement agreements between members of the father’s family that the daughter has not participated in.
About the Author
Greetings! I’m Nishu Lamba, and I’m on a mission to demystify the law. Trained as a law graduate and currently shaping my career as a corporate lawyer, my expertise is rooted in the essential practices of contract drafting and meticulous legal research. Through my writing, I focus on one goal: making complex legal topics crystal clear and accessible so that you can understand the law with confidence.