Interim Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 1.
CS DJ 346/24
Sarat Kumar Sharma Vs. Anita Sharma
05.07.2024
Present: None.
Arguments have already been heard in this case.
Plaintiff is son of defendant no.5. The defendnat no.5
was allotted a plot in the year 1975. Building was constructed on
the same. The property is stood in the name of defendant no.5, who
is still alive. However, plaintiff claims that due to his contribution
in the construction and also in payment to DDA, the property has
become a HUF property and he has become co-owner of the same.
He has therefore filed the instant suit for partition and injunction.
Following averments of the suit are relevant:-
“That Sh. Ram Swarup Sharma was allotted plot bearing
No. C-3/101, Ashok Vihar, Phase-II, Delhi-52
admeasuring about 150 sq. yards, (125.4 sq. mtrs)
(hereinafter referred to as “Demised premises/Suit
property”) vide lease dated 09.07.1975 which was duly
registered at S. No. 2512, Book No.-1, Volume no. 32/33
at paged 101 to 106 on 09.07.1975.
XXXX
-- 1 of 3 --
2
That the suit property though standing in the name of
defendant no.5 became a property of the Hindu
Undivided Famly (HUF) as the funds of the plaintiff have
been invested in the construction of the suit property and
the plaintiff has spent huge amount of the monies in the
marriage of the defendant no.2 to 4.
XXXX
That by virtue ot the contribution of the plaintiff in the
exepnses of the family along with the monies spent in the
construction of the suit property in addition to paying the
premium amount for the execution of the Conveyance
Deed, the suit property became the property of the HUF
and the plaintiff, defendant no.2 to 5 became the co-
owners of the suit property in equal proportion”.
The aforesaid clearly shows that defendant no.5 is the
owner of the property. By giving money, no one can become an
owner of immovable property. For becoming owner of immovable
property for more than Rs.100/-, the registered sale deed is a
necessity. It is not the claim of the plaintiff that he has any such
document in his favour. By making contribution in construction or
otherwise, a property can never be converted into HUF property.
Existence of Hindu Undivided Family is a different thing than
existence of coparcenary property. Only in an coparcenary property
that sons and daughters can claim any right along with their father.
The instant property is self acquired prperty of father and has not
-- 2 of 3 --
3
devolved on him through any ancestral. Therefore, till the time
defendant no.5 is alive, no one else can claim any right in the said
property.
It is clear that the plaintiff is not a co-sharer of property
in question and therefore, he can not file any type of suit for
partition.
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC says that if plaintiff does not have
any cause of action to file the suit, the court is duty bound to reject
the plaint. In the present case, the plaintiff does not have any right
to sue for partition because he has no right on the property as a co-
sharer. Clearly there is absence of cause of action which will attract
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Consequently, this plaint is rejected. Decree be prepared
accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(Rakesh Kumar Singh)
DJ-02/(N-W), Rohini Courts,
Delhi/05.07.2024
-- 3 of 3 --