Holding

Order XII Rule 6 CPC authorises the court to dismiss a suit on its own motion, and the earlier decrees bind the parties, precluding the appellant from relitigating the properties.

Summary

The appellant, Saroj Salkan, filed a partition suit under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act seeking division of five properties inherited from her father, Major General Budh Singh, against the legal heirs of her brother and sister. The Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissed the suit under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC on his own motion, finding no cause of action and relying on admissions and prior declaratory decrees. The appellant challenged the dismissal, arguing that the judge should have used Order VII Rule 11 and that dismissal without a respondent's application was impermissible, and contended that the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act gave her coparcenary rights. The Supreme Court held that Order XII Rule 6 grants the court wide discretion to pass a judgment or dismiss a suit on its own motion, and that the earlier decrees in four related suits barred the appellant from relitigating the properties, rendering the appeal untenable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the lower court’s dismissal of the partition suit.

Issues considered

The propriety of dismissing a partition suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC on the court's own motion without an application by any party.
Whether Order VII Rule 11 CPC could have been used instead of Order XII Rule 6 CPC for dismissal.
The effect of prior declaratory decrees in related suits on the appellant's claim to the properties.
The applicability of the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to the present suit.
The limitation bar on the claim concerning the Anand Niketan house.

Legislation cited

Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Acts. Section 4(1)
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order VII Rule 11, s. Order XII Rule 6, s. Section 16
Hindu Succession Act, 1956s. Section 6, s. Section 6(1), s. Section 6(5)
Limitation Act, 1963s. Article 59

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the dismissal of the partition suit u/Ord.XII r.6 CPC by the Single Judge of the High Court based on the admission, and that too on its own motion without an application being filed by the other party. Headnotes† Code of Civil on admissions – Suit filed by the appellant u/s.6 of the 1956 Act for partition, injunction and accounts involving five properties, held by the appellant’s father against the legal heirs of appellant’s brother and his sister-respondent no. 6 – Parties previously involved

Subjects

PartitionDismissal of suitConsensual decreeSelf acquired propertyCo-parceneryHindu Undivided FamilyHUFJoint Hindu familyJudgment on admissionsDeclaratory suitsCause of actionLimitation

Judgment

[2025] 6 S.C.R. 210 : 2025 INSC 632

Saroj Salkan
v.
Huma Singh & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 6389 of 2025)
06 May 2025
[Sanjay Karol and Manmohan,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the correctness of the dismissal of the partition
suit u/Ord.XII r.6 CPC by the Single Judge of the High Court
based on the admission, and that too on its own motion without
an application being filed by the other party.

Headnotes†
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord.XII r.6, Ord.VII r.11 –
Judgment on admissions – Suit filed by the appellant u/s.6 of
the 1956 Act for partition, injunction and accounts involving
five properties, held by the appellant’s father against the legal
heirs of appellant’s brother and his sister-respondent no. 6 –
Parties previously involved in declaratory suits regarding the
properties – After completion of pleadings when the partition
suit was listed for framing of issues, the Single Judge passed
a decree dismissing the partition suit u/Ord.XII r.6 observing
that no cause of action arises – Division Bench upheld the
decree – Correctness:
Held: Submission that the Single Judge could have dismissed
the suit u/Ord.VII r.11 alone and not u/Ord.XII r.6 and that too
without any application being filed by the respondents is untenable
in law – Ord.XII r.6 gives a very wide discretion to the Court to
pass a judgment at any stage of the suit and that too on its own
motion, without any application being filed by any party – Ord.
XII r.6 authorises the Court to not only pass a decree regarding
admitted claim, but also to dismiss the suit – On facts, the effect
of the decrees in the declaratory suits, was that the appellant
cannot go behind them in the present proceedings – Respondent
no.6-sister estopped from contending that property B is owned

* Author
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 211

Saroj Salkan v. Huma Singh & Ors.

by a co-parcenary/HUF of which she is a member – Furthrmore,
proviso to sub-section 1 of amended s.6 of the 1956 attracted
to the instant case and submission by appellant and respondent
no.6 with respect to s. 6 not applicable to the instant case – Also
the suit to the extent it challenges ownership of Anand Niketan
house is barred by limitation – Order passed by the High Courts
upheld – Hindu Succession Act, 1956. [Paras 36-49]

Case Law Cited
Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India [2000]
Supp. 2 SCR 187 : (2000) 7 SCC 120; Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao
Patil v. K. Madan Mohan Rao [2023] 9 SCR 1218 : 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 871; Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma and Ors.
[2020] 10 SCR 135 : (2020) 9 SCC 1; Maria Margarida Sequeira
Fernandes & Ors v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (D) Tr. Lrs. & Ors.
[2012] 3 SCR 841 : (2012) 5 SCC 370; Rajiv Ghosh v. Satya
Naryan Jaiswal, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9975 of 2025;
ITDC Limited v. Chander Pal Sood and Son (2000) 84 DLT 337
(DB); Kalyani (Dead) by LRs. v. Narayanan [1980] SCR 1130 :
(1980) Supp. SCC 298 – referred to.

Books and Periodicals Cited
Mayne’s Hindu Law, 11th Edition, p. 347 – referred to.

List of Acts
Code of Civil Procedure, 1973; Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

List of Keywords
Partition; Dismissal of suit; Consensual decree; Self acquired
property; Co-parcenery; Hindu Undivided Family; HUF; Joint Hindu
family; Dismissal of the partition suit; Judgment on admissions;
Declaratory suits; Partition suit listed for framing of issues; Cause
of action; Limitation.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6389 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.11.2022 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in RFA (OS) No. 51 of 2016
212 [2025] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Dushyant Dave, Sr. Adv., Shubhankar Sengupta, Aarush Bhatia,
Ms. Anindita Mitra.
Advs. for the Respondents:
P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv., Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv., Sameer Singh,
Ms. Neelam Singh, Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Ms. Vani Vyas,
Prakhar Singh, Narendra Prabhakar, Gopal Jha, Nimish Arjaria,
Umesh Kumar Yadav, Shubhankar Sen Gupta, Aarush Bhatia,
Sanjay Kumar Singh, M/S. Vachher And Agrud, Sameer Rohatgi,
Sumit Kumar Sharma, Rajat Sangwan, Ms. Shehla Chaudhary, Md.
Anas Chaudhary, Mohd. Sharyab Ali, Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary,
Kartikey Singh.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Manmohan, J

1. Leave granted.
2. The present Appeal has been filed challenging the impugned
judgment and final order dated 15th November, 2022 passed by the
High Court of Delhi in RFA (OS) No. 51/2016, whereby the Division
Bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the Decree dated 5th May,
2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in CS(OS) No. 683/2007
dismissing the partition suit under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC’) with liberty to approach the competent
Court at Sonepat, Haryana for partition of land situated in Barota.
3. The subject suit was filed by the Appellant-plaintiff under Section 6 of
the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 for partition, injunction and accounts
involving five properties held by the Appellant-plaintiff’s father – Late
Major General Budh Singh against the legal heirs of Anup Singh i.e.
brother of Appellant-plaintiff and her sister, Respondent No.6, who
is supporting the case of the Appellant-plaintiff. The five properties
that were made the subject matter of the suit for partition were:-
(a) Barota Land (72 acres approx. with farmhouse)
(b) Agriculture land – 11 acres at Kalupur, Sonepat
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 213

Saroj Salkan v. Huma Singh & Ors.

(c) 8 Bigha of Dairy Plot at Sonepat
(d) Bhatgaon Land (30 acres of houses, outhouses and orchard)
(e) C-38, Anand Niketan, New Delhi.
4. The pedigree table of the family, for quick reference is as under:

Major General Budh Singh (died on 08.11.1988)

Son (Anup Singh) Daughter (Saroj Salkan) Daughter (Sharda Hooda)
(died on 18.08.1989) [Appellant-Plaintiff] [R-6]

Wife Son Son Daughter Daughter Daughter
(Sneh Lata) (Sanjeev Singh) (Rajeev Singh) (Renu Singh) (Madhu Eggbert) (Anju Singh)
Died in (Died) [R-2] [R-3] [R-4] [R-5]
June 2024

Wife
(Uma Singh)
[R-1]

5. After completion of pleadings when the partition suit was listed
for framing of issues, the learned Single Judge passed a decree
of dismissal of the suit observing ‘as per admitted pleadings and
documents no cause of action arises, no issues are required to be
framed and accordingly I exercise my powers under Order XII Rule
6 CPC to pass a decree; decree includes dismissal of a suit…’. The
relevant portion of the impugned order passed by the learned Single
Judge is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“11. Accordingly, the following conclusions can be derived
on the basis of the pleadings and the admitted documents
on record:—
(i) In the subject suit for partition, and properties whereof
are stated in para 2 of the plaint, as regards the properties
stated in para 2(b) and 2(c), no details of these properties
have been provided as required by Order VII Rule 1, Order
VII Rule 3 read with Order VI Rule 4 CPC, and hence
214 [2025] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the suit plaint is not maintainable for seeking partition
of these properties which are alleged to exist, but which
really do not exist. This aspect is to be taken note of with
the fact that no documents whatsoever have been filed
by the plaintiff (assuming such documents form part of
the pleadings) which will give the municipal number or
the revenue numbers or the areas of these properties.
Suit is therefore liable to be and is accordingly dismissed
for properties stated in para 2(b) and 2(c) of the plaint
being the properties situated at Kalupur and dairy plot at
Sonepat in Haryana.
(ii) The plaint and the replication as they stand allege
existence of HUF and its properties on account of late Gen.
Budh Singh having acquired ancestral properties but not
only no details are pleaded/given of which are the specific
ancestral properties which are acquired by late Gen. Budh
Singh, and also it is further not pleaded as to which of
these specific properties were inherited by late Gen. Budh
Singh prior to 1956. Once there do not exist averments
of inheritance of specific properties by Gen. Budh Singh
prior to 1956, no HUF of these properties can be said to
exist of having come into existence prior to 1956.
(iii) The only other way thereafter that HUF and its
properties could exist is if Gen. Budh Singh who inherited
ancestral properties had thrown the properties into a
common hotchpotch, but that too is not the case as set
out in the plaint of HUF and its properties being created
on account of late Gen. Budh Singh throwing the property
or properties into common hotchpotch.
(iv) Challenge by the plaintiff to the Judgment and Decree
dated 8.3.1977 passed in suit no. 66/1977 on the ground
that this decree is collusive and not binding is liable to fail
by virtue of Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 inasmuch
as challenge in the year 2007 to a judgment and decree
passed 30 years back on 8.3.1977 is hopelessly barred
by limitation.
(v) So far as the property at C-38, Anand Niketan is
concerned, once title deeds of this property are admittedly
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 215

Saroj Salkan v. Huma Singh & Ors.

in the name of late Sh. Anup Singh (and who is now
represented by his legal heirs, defendant nos. 1 to 5), the
suit is barred by Section 4(1) of the Benami Act read with
the fact that no sufficient pleadings exist for existence of
HUF and its properties and of the property at C-38, being
an HUF property.
(vi) So far as the land situated at Barota, Sonepat is
concerned and with respect to which the case of the
defendant is that late Gen. Budh Singh died leaving
behind his Will dated 3.11.1987 and this Will is disputed
by the plaintiff, I need not examine the merits of the matter
because the suit land is situated at Sonepat, Haryana and
therefore in view of Section 16 CPC, suit for this land at
Barota, Sonepat on the cause of action that father was the
exclusive owner of this property and who died intestate
and hence plaintiff as a legal heir will inherit a share in
the properties of the father will have to be dealt with and
decided by the competent court at Sonepat, Haryana.”
6. The appeal filed by the Appellant-plaintiff was dismissed by the
Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 11th October, 2022.
The relevant portion of judgment and order passed by the Division
Bench is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“16. Barring aforesaid, learned counsel for appellant has
neither pleaded nor advanced any arguments nor thrown
any light over the legal position nor cited any case laws
regarding any of the issues/grounds, especially the relevant
quoted provisions of the Code and the Limitation Act,
recourse whereto form the very basis of dismissal of suit
of appellant by the learned Single Judge under Order XII
rule 6 of the Code vide the impugned judgment. In support
of her contentions, though learned counsel for appellant
has relied upon more than 30 judgments with respect to the
law expounded qua HUF, ancestral property, coparcenary,
joint family property, so on and so forth but we are afraid
the learned counsel for appellant has failed to draw our
attention or cite any law regarding the two fundamental
issues of pleadings and limitation for maintainability of the
present appeal. Appellant, thus failing to cross over the
216 [2025] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

main obstacles is unable to counter the basic essence of
the impugned judgment…”

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT-PLAINTIFF
7. Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel for the Appellant-plaintiff
submitted that the impugned judgment dated 05th May 2016 was
untenable in law, inasmuch as, the learned Single Judge had
dismissed the partition suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. He submitted
that the plaint could have been rejected and the suit dismissed under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC alone. He further submitted that the learned
Single Judge could not have dismissed the suit under Order XII Rule
6 CPC and that too on its own motion without an application being
filed by the Respondents. In support of his submission, he relied upon
the judgment of this Court in Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. V.
United Bank of India 2000 (7) SCC 120 and Bhim Rao Baswanth
Rao Patil vs. K. Madan Mohan Rao 2023 SCC OnLine SC 871.
The relevant portion of the judgment in Uttam Singh Duggal & Co.
Ltd. (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“As to the object of Order 12 Rule 6, we need not say
anything more than what the legislature itself has said when
the saif provision came to be amended. In the Objects and
Reasons set out while amending the said Rule, it is stated
that “where a claim is admitted, the court has jurisdiction
to enter a judgment for the plaintiff and to pass a decree
on admitted claim. The object of the Rule is to enable the
party to obtain a speedy judgment at least to the extent
of the relief to which according to the admission of the
defendant, the plaintiff is entitled”. We should not unduly
narrow down the meaning of this Rule as the object is to
enable a party to obtain speedy judgment. Where the other
party has made a plain admission entitling the former to
succeed, it should apply and also wherever there is a clear
admission of facts in the face of which it is impossible for
the party making such admission to succeed.”
8. He submitted that the learned Single Judge had committed a serious
error in holding that a reading of the plaint did not show creation
and existence of a Hindu Undivided Family (‘HUF’) of Late Major
General Budh Singh prior to 1956. He emphasised that the plaint
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 217

Saroj Salkan v. Huma Singh & Ors.

clearly disclosed that the properties were ancestral in nature and
were owned by the HUF of Late Major General Budh Singh. In
support of his submission, he relied upon the judgments passed in
four Suits filed among some of the parties at different points of time
with respect to the five properties that were the subject matter of
the present partition suit.
9. He stated that the suit for declaration being Suit No. 671/1 of 1972
(hereinafter referred to as “Suit I”) filed by the present Appellant along
with her sister (Respondent No.6) and minor sons of their brother
Anup Singh on 25th March, 1972 proceeded on the basis that the
Barota and Bhatgaon lands were HUF properties. He stated that the
Trial Court decreed that suit because Major General Budh Singh
(Late father of Appellant-plaintiff, Respondent No.6 and Anup Singh
himself) appeared and filed a written statement and so did Anup
Singh accepting the claim of the plaintiffs therein. He emphasised that
the Trial Court decreed Suit I on 06th April, 1972 declaring plaintiffs
No. 1 to 4 to be owners in possession of the Barota land detailed
against their name in para no.4 of the plaint and holding that Late
Major General Budh Singh (defendant therein) has no right, title or
interest in the same.
10. Mr. Dave, learned senior counsel, stated that subsequently, a second
suit being Suit No. 66/1977 (hereinafter referred to as “Suit II”) was
filed by Late Major General Budh Singh against his daughters alone
i.e. Appellant-plaintiff and Respondent No.6 claiming Barota lands
decreed in favour of his daughters to be his personal property, fearing
that the lands may be declared excess land under the Haryana
Land Ceiling Act. He pointed out that Suit II was predicated on the
premise that the decree passed in Suit I was declared a nullity qua
Appellant-plaintiff and Respondent no. 6 herein by Collector Surplus.
11. He stated that the present Appellant-plaintiff and sister-Respondent
No.6 filed a written statement in Suit II categorically averring that
“Though the defendants got a decree in their favour in the year 1970
regarding the land detailed in para No.1 of the plaint but no right or
title was recognised or admitted by the our/us authorities and the
plaintiff continued to be owner in possession of the said land and
as such the decree of the Sub Judge Sonipat dated 7.4.72 was
declared a nullity in the eyes of law and could not be accepted upon.
The plaintiff continued to be owner in possession of the said land.”
218 [2025] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

12. He stated that the Trial Court passed a consensual decree in the
said suit on 08th March, 1977 declaring the decree dated 04th March,
1972 passed in Suit I as a nullity. He submitted that since Suit II
had been decreed, therefore, the partition claimed under the Suit I
did not, in any event, survive.
13. He emphasised that a third suit being Suit No. 219/1978 (hereinafter
referred to as “Suit III”) was filed by Anup Singh against his own
father categorically averring that Barota and Bhatgaon properties
were ancestral properties and that the sisters on account of having
been married had no interest or title in the ancestral properties and
were no longer members of the HUF. The said suit was decreed on
admission on 6th October, 1978.
14. He lastly stated that sons of Anup Singh filed a suit for declaration
being Suit No. 622/1984 (hereinafter referred to as “Suit IV”) against
Mr. Anup Singh their own father with regard to Anand Niketan house.
He stated that this suit was also decreed on admission of defendant
therein on 03rd January, 1985.
15. Mr. Dave submitted that with these documents on record the learned
Single Judge could not have dismissed the suit for lack of particulars
and the Division Bench could not have dismissed the Appeal on
the ground that the said decrees were not challenged, completely
overlooking that the sisters, Appellant-plaintiff and Respondent No.6,
were young at that point of time and were under the influence of
the powerful personality of their late father and therefore agreed to
sign papers as directed. According to him, it is a matter of common
knowledge that daughters in most Hindu families have little or no
say whatsoever. He contended that, be as it may, the existence of
HUF stood proved in the said proceedings. He emphasised that
the decrees against the sisters were clearly sham decrees only to
override the provisions of the Ceiling Laws as the plaint in Suit II
clearly averred that the Collector Surplus did not accept the decree
passed in Suit I.
16. Lastly, Mr. Dave, learned senior counsel, submitted that the impugned
judgments frustrate and negate the statutory amendment brought
about by Parliament in the Hindu Succession Act 1956, by substituting
Section 6 with effect from 09th September, 2005. He submitted that
the learned Single Judge and Division Bench failed to appreciate
that the amended Section 6 had retroactive application. In support of
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 219

Saroj Salkan v. Huma Singh & Ors.

his submission, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in Vineeta
Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma and Ors. (2020) 9 SCC 1, wherein it
has been held as under:-
“54. ... The goal of gender justice as constitutionally
envisaged is achieved though belatedly, and the
discrimination made is taken care of by substituting the
provisions of Section 6 by the 2005 Amendment Act.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
60. … Though the rights can be claimed, w.e.f. 9-9-2005,
the provisions are of retroactive application; they confer
benefits based on the antecedent event, and the Mitakshara
coparcenary law shall be deemed to include a reference
to a daughter as a coparcener….
61. ... Under the amended Section 6, since the right is given
by birth, that is, an antecedent event, and the provisions
operate concerning claiming rights on and from the date
of the Amendment Act.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
67. The proviso to Section 6(1) and Section 6(5) saves any
partition effected before 20-12-2004. However, Explanation
to Section 6(5) recognises partition effected by execution
of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration
Act, 1908 or by a decree of a court. Other forms of partition
have not been recognised under the definition of “partition”
in the Explanation.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
135. A special definition of partition has been carved out
in the Explanation. The intendment of the provisions is not
to jeopardise the interest of the daughter and to take care
of sham or frivolous transaction set up in defence unjustly
to deprive the daughter of her right as coparcener and
prevent nullifying the benefit flowing from the provisions
as substituted….The intendment of Section 6 of the Act is
only to accept the genuine partitions that might have taken
place under the prevailing law, and are not set up as a false
defence and only oral ipse dixit is to be rejected outrightly….”
220 [2025] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF OTHER SISTER, RESPONDENT
NO.6
17. Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
sister-Respondent No.6, stated that in view of the admission in Suit
IV filed by Shri Sanjiv Singh and Shri Rajiv Singh against Anup Singh
that ‘joint family owned ancestral/co-parcenary family properties both
in Village Bhatgaon and Village Akbarpur Barota’, the contention of
the Respondents that Barota land was a grant in favour of Late Major
General Budh Singh and therefore it was his self-acquired property
was misplaced. He submitted that once there was an admission
by the opposite party that the property was co-parcenary, more so,
in an earlier suit, the existence of the property being co-parcenary
cannot be disputed in the present proceedings.
18. He further stated that the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 had admitted in
their written statement (filed in the subject suit) that the Bhatgaon
property was ancestral property of Late Major General Budh Singh
and that he had sold some land in Bhatgaon and with the sale
proceeds had purchased the plot in Anand Niketan.
19. He also contended that Suit II had been filed by Late Major General
Budh Singh with clear intent to reverse the revenue entries in favour
of the Appellant-plaintiff and Respondent No.6. He emphasised that
the alleged admissions with respect to Late Major General Budh Singh
being the owner of the Barota property were made by the Appellant-
plaintiff and Respondent No.6 herein as the decree dated 07th April
1992 (in Suit I) had not been accepted by Collector Surplus and that
the said decree had been declared collusive. He submitted that the
Courts below had failed to appreciate the pleading of Respondent
Nos.1 to 5, not only in the earlier proceedings but also in the written
statement in the present proceedings.
20. In any event, he submitted that the Appellant-plaintiff and Respondent
No.6 should have been given an opportunity to explain the alleged
admissions in Suit II during the trial of the present case.

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.2
21. At the outset, Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for the
Respondent No.2 contended that no cause of action had arisen qua
properties at Kalupur, Bhatgaon land and dairy plot at Sonepat, as
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 221

Saroj Salkan v. Huma Singh & Ors.

they do not exist. He pointed out that the plaint did not disclose any
details or exact description and area cross referencing with revenue/
municipal records with respect to land at Kalupur and dairy plot at
Sonepat.
22. He further stated that the Appellant-plaintiff had given up her claim
in respect of Barota land in the written submissions filed before the
Division Bench and the same had been recorded by the Division
Bench in the impugned judgment as under:-
“12. It is to be noted, that based on the pleadings of the
parties, finding no details qua two ancestral properties,
being Kalupur land and Dairy plot, by appellant and denial
of the same by respondents, learned Single Judge vide
the impugned Judgment dismissed the suit of the appellant
qua the said two properties in limine, which has not been
challenged before this Court. Similarly, qua the Barota
land also, appellant during the course of arguments and
in written submissions submitted as under:—
“With regard to the plea of the land Barota being
agricultural property and covered by the Punjab Land
Revenue Act It is stated that since the defendant have
propounded a will the matter has to be adjudicated
in court the legal consequences of which will bear
upon the said property.”
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
35. It is reiterated that the dismissal of the suit qua the
three ancestral properties being Kalupur land, Dairy plot
and Barota land by the learned Single Judge has not
been challenged before this Court, and therefore there
is no requirement for us to venture into the same. The
suit of appellant qua the two ancestral properties being
Kalupur land and Dairy plot, stands dismissed in limine vide
impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and qua
the Barota land appellant has been rightly granted liberty
to approach the appropriate forum at Sonepat, Haryana
having appropriate jurisdiction, as in light of Section 16 of
the Code, that the cause of action qua the Barota Land
arises there.”
222 [2025] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

23. He emphasised that the Appellant-plaintiff had herself admitted in her
replication that the Barota land was awarded to Late Major General
Budh Singh as a gallantry award during the second world war. He
submitted that it is settled law that a grant/award is the self-acquired
or personal property of the awardee, which implies that Barota land
was self-acquired property of Late Major General Budh Singh and
not an HUF property. In any event, he stated that the Barota land
which was the only property owned by Late Major General Budh
Singh devolved upon his paternal grandsons by way of a registered
Will dated 03rd November, 1987.
24. He further stated that, admittedly, C-38, Anand Niketan house was
purchased by Late Major General Budh Singh in 1968 and then on
a request made by Late Major General Budh Singh, the same was
transferred by the Government to Anup Singh, by a duly registered
perpetual sub-lease deed, way back on 3rd April, 1970.
25. Learned senior counsel for the Respondent No.2 laid considerable
emphasis on the pleadings, prayer and judgments passed in the four
suits by the Sonepat Court, the same are reproduced hereinbelow:-

I. a) Parties to the Suit
In the Case No.671/1 of 1972 (Suit I, decreed on 06th April, 1972)
titled Sanjiv Singh, Rajiv Singh, Saroj Salkan and Sharda Rani
vs. Gen. Budh Singh and Anup Singh, there were four plaintiffs
and two defendants.

b) Relevant averments in the plaint
2…Gair mumkin situated in the village Barota Tehsil Sonipat
according Jamabandi for the year 1966-67 is owned by the
defendants and plaintiff No.1, due to ancestral property the
same comes in equal share and on which the plaintiff and
defendant No.1 are having possession on their share of
the said separately as owner under the following manners
and the parties are having no concern with the petition of
another. The copy of the JAMABANDI is annexed.
3. That the land situated at Village Bhatgaon Tehsil
SONIPAT was the property of the parties and the defendant
no.2 is having possession on it. The same comes under
the share of defendant No.2 in mutual partition and the
defendant No.2 is an absolute owner and possession of
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 223

Saroj Salkan v. Huma Singh & Ors.

the entire land situated at Village Bhatgaon. Therefore,
the defendant No.2 is having no concern with the land
as mentioned in para No.1 because the plaintiff and the
defendants are entitled to get equal share in the above
said property as mentioned in para No.1 as a legal heirs.
4. That due to the mutual partition the plaintiffs and
defendant No.1 are the owner and possessors as under
and no concern of one owner to the share of another
owner. Details of the land of plaintiff no.1 to 4 and the
defendant No.1 is as under :-
a) The share of landlord namely Sanjeev Singh i.e. plaintiff
No.1 is as under:-
Khewat No.49, Khata No.67 Musttil and Killa Nos.

7
21 22 23 24
8-0 8-0 8-0 7-1

8 0/1 10
21 0-1 1 2 3 4 5 6/2
7-11 7-0 7-11 7-12 7-6 4-12

10
7 8 9 10
7-12 8-0 8-0 8-0 measuring area 114 kanals 19 marla

The share of owner Rajeev Singh Plaintiff No.2 is as under:-
Khewat No.19 Khata No.67 Mustatil and Killa Nos.

11
6 7 8 13 14 15 16 17 18/1
8-0 8-0 8-0 8-0 8-0 8-0 8-0 8-0 1/11

11 7
24 25 11 12 19 20
8-0 8-0 8-0 8-0 8-0 8-0
224 [2025] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Measuring 113 Kanals 11 Marla
c) the share of owner Smt. Saroj Salkan plaintiff No.3 is as
under:- Khewat No.49 Khata No.67 Mustail and Killa Nos.

1 3
23 1 2 3
0-13 5-0 7-7 8-0

3
8 9 10 11 12 13 19/2 20
8-0 8-0 8-0 8-0 8-0 8-0 3-12 8-0

4
5 6 15 16 24 25 6
0-12 2-14 4-8 7-06 1-8 8-0 8-0
Measuring area 113 kanals 6 marlas

d) That the share of owner Kumari Sharda Rani plaintiff
No.3 is as under:-
Khewat No.49 Khata No.67 Mustatil and Killa Nos.

6
4 6 7 8 13
414 8-0 7-12 0-11 3-14

6
14 15 16 17 18 23 24 25
8-0 8-0 8-0 7-9 7-16 8-0 8-0 8-0

11
3 4 5
7-11 7-11 7-1
Measuring area 109 Kanals 19 marlas

E) That the share of owner Budh Singh is as under Khwa
No.49, Khata No.67 Mustatil and Killa Nos.
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 225

Saroj Salkan v. Huma Singh & Ors.

10
11 12 13 14 17/2 18 19
8-0 7-16 8-0 8-0 8-0 8-0 8-0

10
20 21 22 23 24
8-0 8-0 7-16 7-16 0-13

16
1 2 3/4 9 10/1
7-11 7-11 4-7 8-12 7-4
Measuring area 119 Kanals 14 Marlas situated in the
Village Akbarpur Barota Tehsil Sonipat.

E) That the share of owner Budh Singh is as under Khwa
No.49, Khata No.67 Mustatil and Killa Nos.

10
11 12 13 14 17/2 18 19
8-0 7-16 8-0 8-0 8-0 8-0 8-0

10
20 21 22 23 24
8-0 8-0 7-16 7-16 0-13

16
1 2 3/4 9 10/1
7-11 7-11 4-7 8-12 7-4
Measuring area 119 kanals 14 marlas situated in the Village
of Akbarpur Baroa Tehsil Sonipat.

c) Prayer
Measuring 119 kanals 11 marla situated in the Village
Akbarpur Barota Tehsil Sonipat is possessed as occupier
and declare owner and on this land defendant No.2 have
no concerned and defendant No.1 only owner agriculture
226 [2025] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

land as written in para No.4 and the mutation of the parits
about their lands may kindly be mutate in the revenue
records. It is also prayed that the costs of the case may
also be awarded in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants. Any other or further order which this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed. It is
prayed accordingly.

d) Judgment
1. The brief facts of the present suit for declaration are
that plaintiffs 1 and 2 are sons of defendant No.2 and
defendants 3 and 4 are daughters of defendant No.1.
The defendant No.2 is son of defendant No.1. That land
detailed in para 2 of the plaint was owned by defendant
No.1 but it was ancestral in his hand. As such plaintiffs 1
to 4 had also a share in the same. That in the year 1971
it was partitioned between plaintiffs 1 to 4 and defendant
No.1 in the manner as detailed in para 4 of the plaint.
Plaintiff No.1 got the land detailed in sub para (k) plaintiff
No.2 got the land detailed in sub para (kha) plaintiff No.3
got the land detailed in para (ghe) plaintiff No. 4 got the
land detailed in sub para (Ghhe). The remaining land
remained with defendant No.1. That defendant No.2 got
the land situated in village Bhatgaon. That parties are in
possession of the land which came to their share since
then as owners. That the land detailed in para 5 of the
plaint was kept joint. As defendant started claiming titled
the present suit for declaration was filed.
2. Defendant No.1 appeared through Sh. S.P. Jain Advocate
Sonepat and filed a written statement. Defendant No.2
appeared in person and also filed a written statement ....
the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be decreed.
3. For the above reasons I pass a decree declaring plaintiffs
1 to 4 to be owners in possession of the land detailed
against their name in para No. 4 of the plaint. Defendant
has no right, title or interest in the same.
4. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 227

Saroj Salkan v. Huma Singh & Ors.

II. a) Parties to the Suit
In the case No.66 of 1977 (Suit II, decreed on 08th March, 1977)
titled as Major General Budh Singh vs. Saroj Salkan and Sharda
Hooda, there was one plaintiff and two defendants.

b) Relevant averments in the plaint
1. That the plaintiff (Late Gen. Budh Singh) was owner of
land measuring 113 kanals 6 marlas comprised in Khewat
No.49, Khata No.67 rectangle and kila No.1/23…. and land
measuring 110 kanals 9 marlas comprising in Khewat No.49
Khata No.67 rectangle and kila no… situated in the area
of village Akbarpur Barota, Tehsil and district Sonepat vide
jamabandi for the year 1966-67 alongwith other land as
detailed in the said jamabandi of the jamabandi 1966-67
is attached herewith.
2. That the defendant in the year 1972 on 24.3.72 alongwith
the sons of Anup Singh Sanjeev Singh and Rajeev Singh
filed a declaratory suit against the plaintiff in the court of
Sub Judge, Sonepat and the above said land detailed
in para No.1 if the land was declared the ownership of
the defendants whereas the said land was owned and
possessed by the plaintiff at that time and now also the
said land detailed in para No.1 of the plaint continuous to
be owned and possessed by the plaintiff because the said
decree of the Sub Judge Sonepat dated 7.4.72 was not
accepted by the Collector surplus and the land detailed in
para No.1 was assessed and calculated in the area of the
plaintiff. The said decree was declared collusive between
the parties and under the eyes of law as provided under
sections 8 and 12 of the Haryana Land Ceiling Act the
above said transfer under the decree does not effect the
rights of the original owner i.e the plaintiff and the plaintiff
continues to be owner in possession of the said land.

c) Prayer
That the plaintiff prays for a decree for declaration to the
effect that the land detailed in para No.1 of the plaint
continues to be owned and possessed by the plaintiff
228 [2025] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

and the revenue entries in the name of the defendants
are wrong and ineffective as the decree of the civil court
dated 4.3.72 has been declared a nullity by the civil court
and the defendants have no right, title with the same be
passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants with
costs. Any other relief deemed proper be also awarded.

d) Decree/Judgment
1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for declaration to the
effect that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the
suit land and that the defendants have no concern or
titled thereto-.
2. The defendants appeared through counsel and filed
written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiffs.
Statements of parties/counsel have been recorded.
3. Since the parties are not on issue on any of the points,
the suit is decreed as prayed for leaving parties to bear
their own costs.
4. Decree-sheet be drawn accordingly.

III. a) Parties to the Suit
Thereafter, Suit III being Suit No.219/1977 was filed by Anup Singh
against his own father Late Major General Budh Singh praying for a
declaration that Anup Singh was the owner as well as in possession
of the Barota land covered by Suits I and II.

b) Relevant averments in the plaint
1. That agricultural land measuring 119 kanals 14 marlas,
and 56 kanals 16 marlas totaling 16 kanals 12 marlas,
comprising in Khewat No. 52, Khatauni No.64, rectangles
and killa No…..situated in the area of village Akbarpur,
Barota Tehsil and distt. Sonepat vide jamabandi for the
year 1971-72 along with other land in the same village
and other villages such as Bhatgaon, as ancestral land
of the parties and as shown in the name of the defendant
No.1 in the previous Revenue Records. The copies of the
jamabandi are attached herewith
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 229

Saroj Salkan v. Huma Singh & Ors.

2. That the above said land, detailed in para No.1 of
the plaint along with other lands were wrongly entered
in the names of Shrimati Saroj Salkan and Smt. Sharda
daughters of the defendant, as owners in the Revenue
Records in the year 1971-72 but the defendant after filing
a suit in the Civil Court get the revenue records corrected
and the above said lands as detailed in para No.1 of the
plaint were again reverted in the name of the defendant
and mutations No.2335 and 2336 were duly entered and
sanctioned in the name of the defendant as owners and
since the defendant is shown as owner of the above
land as detailed in para No.1 of the plaint. Copies of the
mutations are attached herewith.
3. That the plaintiff and the defendant constitute a Joint
Hindu Family being father son and the said daughters
Smt. Saroj Salkan and Smt. Sharda who have since been
married, have no more remained members of the Joint
Family and of the ancestral property in question, including
land detailed in para No.1 of the plaint, being ancestral
property constitutional Hindu Joint family pariets to the said
property being coparceners of the Hindu Joint Family are
sons of the Hindu Joint Family in equal shares.
4. That the defendants disrupted the Hindu Joint family in
the month of December, 1977 and divided all the Hindu
Joint Family property in his hand of which the defendant
was holding as Karta of the Joint Hindu Family at his own
instance and the land detailed in para No.1 of the plaint
was given to the plaintiff in the said family partition by
the defendant.
5. That since December, 1977 when the land detailed in
para No.1 of the plaint was given to the plaintiff in partition,
the plaintiff is owner in possession of the same and the
defendant has no right or title over the said land.

c) Prayer
That the plaintiff prays for decree for declaration to the
effect that the land detailed in para No.1 of the plaint is
owned and possessed by the plaintiff and the defendants
230 [2025] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

has no right or title over the same, be passed in favour of
the plaintiff against the defendant with costs.

d) Judgment
In view of the admitted written statement as also admitted
statement dated 29.9.78, the suit of the Plaintiff is liable
to be decreed and is hereby decreed to the effect that
the Plaintiff is the owner in possession of this suit land
described in the heading of the Plaint. However, parties
hereto have to bear their own costs. Decree Sheet is
drawn accordingly.

IV. a) Parties to the Suit
Suit IV being Suit No.622/1984 was between Anup Singh and his
sons, where they constituted Joint Hindu Family and pertained to
the Anand Niketan house. The said house was partitioned between
them by virtue of the decree passed in the Suit.

b) Relevant averments in the plaint
1. That the parties to the suit are governed by Hindu
Law and they constitute a Joint Hindu Family, defendant
as Karta of the Hindu Joint family and joint family owned
ancestral / coparcenary family properties both in Village
Bhatgaon and Village Akbarpur Barota and in the said Hindu
Joint Family properties, the plaintiffs had birth right being
co- parcener of the Hindu Joint family and therefore, the
owner of 1/3rd each in the said properties and defendant
was owner of 1/3rd share.
2. That the defendant about 10 years back sold away
the coparcenary property i.e agricultural land measuring
about 30 acres situated at Village Bhatgaon and joint
family house, which formed the nucleus of the Joint Hindu
family, by act of good management and out of the said
sale consideration, the defendant purchased the plot No.
C-38, situated at Anand Niketan, New Delhi and thereafter
constructed a house thereon which is known as Khoti No.
C-38, situated at Anand Niketan, New Delhi, shown in the
site plan attached and bounded as under:-
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 231

Saroj Salkan v. Huma Singh & Ors.

North: Service Lane 15’ wide
South: Road 45’ wide
East: Plot No. C-37
West: Plot No. C-39
3. That besides the above said house as detailed in para
No.3, of the plaint, the said Hindu Joint family also, owns
land in the name of the defendant, measuring 2 kanals
19 marlas, comprising Khewat No. 167, Khata No. 179,
situated in the area of Village Lehlara, Teh. and Dist.
Sonepat, vide Jamabandi for the year 1977-78, which
was also purchased from Joint Family funds in the name
of the defendant and in which also the plaintiffs and the
defendant are owners in possession of 1/3rd share each.
The copy of Jamabandi is attached.

c) Prayer
That the plaintiffs, most respectfully prayed that the decree
for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are owners
in possession of 2/3rd share of the properties i.e house
C-38, Anand Niketan, New Delhi and shown in the site
plan attached and land as detailed in paras No. 3 & 4 of
the plaint and the defendant is only owner in possession of
2/3rd share in the same, be passed in favour of the plaintiffs
and against the defendant, with costs. Any other relief
which the Ld. Court deems fit and proper be also passed.

d) Judgment
1. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiffs
for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are owners
in possession of 2/3rd share of the properties i.e. House
C-38, situated in Anand Niketan, New Delhi and shown
in the site plan attached and detailed in para no.3 and 4
of the plaint.
2.The suit is being not contested by the defendant. He
has filed his written statement admitting the suit of the
plaintiffs and has also got recorded his statement on oath
to the same effect.
232 [2025] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

3. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiffs succeeds and a
decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are
owners in possession of 2/3rd share of the house situated
in Anand Niketan New Delhi and shown in the site plan and
detailed in para no.3 and 4 of the plaint, and the defendant
is owner in possession of the remaining 1/3rd share in that
house, is passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendant, with no orders as to the costs, decree sheet
be prepared accordingly and the file be consigned to the
record room with due compliance.
26. Learned senior counsel for Respondent No.2 submitted that effect
of the four decrees was that the Appellant-plaintiff and Respondent
No.6 stood ousted from all the properties of Late Major General
Budh Singh.
27. He contended that the Appellant-plaintiff was required to furnish details
as to how and when the self-acquired property was thrown into the
fold of the co-parcenary property by Late Major General Budh Singh.
He stated that the plaint lacked averments regarding exact details
of specific date/month/year of creation of HUF for the first time by
throwing property into common hotchpotch. He contended that a mere
averment in the plaint that a Joint Hindu Family or HUF exists, was
not enough, as detailed facts were required to be categorically stated
as to when and how the properties had become HUF properties. Such
averment had to be made by factual references qua each property
claimed to be an HUF property. He emphasised that the plaint was
silent about facts as to when (i.e. the exact date, month and year and
whether before or after coming into force of the Hindu Succession
Act, 1956) and how the personal property of Late Major General
Budh Singh was thrown into the common hotchpotch to form an HUF.
28. He submitted that it is well settled law that when pleadings do not
give sufficient details, the Court is not required to frame issues and
can dismiss the claim or pass a decree on admission. In support of
his submission, he relied upon the judgment passed by this Court
in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes & Ors v. Erasmo Jack
De Sequeira (D) Tr. Lrs. & Ors. 2012 (5) SCC 370, wherein it has
been held as under:-
“74. If the pleadings do not give sufficient details, they will
not raise an issue, and the Court can reject the claim or
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 233

Saroj Salkan v. Huma Singh & Ors.

pass a decree on admission. On vague pleadings no issue
arises. Only when he so establishes, does the question of
framing of an issue arise. Framing of issue is an extremely
important stage in a civil trial. Judges are expected to
carefully examine the pleadings and documents before
framing of issues in a given case.”
29. He lastly stated that the Appellant-plaintiff by way of the instant suit
had indulged in luxurious litigation. He pointed out that such act of
the Appellant-plaintiff had been condemned by the Division Bench
in the impugned judgement, wherein it was observed as under:-
“47. We condemn the act of appellant, who in a very
half-hearted, almost callous manner, chose to initiate this
luxurious litigation wasting the precious time of the legal
machinery by setting it into motion without any cause or
purpose. The suit contains half-baked facts which are not
permissible in law. Nothing stopped appellant from filing
requisite proof to establish her case qua the Barota land;
to challenge the previous judgment dated 08.03.1977
passed in Suit II; to challenge the title deeds in favor of
late Mr. Anup Singh qua Anand Niketan property; take
appropriate steps qua Bhatgaon land. The initiation
thereof by appellant is a gross abuse of the process of
law. Clever drafting and illusory basis cannot make the
suit maintainable if it does not have any material basis.
Learned Single Judge has rightly exercised his powers
under Order XII rule 6 of the Code by nipping it in the
bud, thereby closing the chapter of disputes qua the five
ancestral properties involved.”

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.3
30. Mr. Narendra Prabhakar, learned counsel for Respondent No.3 stated
that the present suit filed by Appellant-plaintiff was founded on two
erroneous assumptions, namely, that there was a presumption of Joint
Hindu Family property despite no specific averment in the plaint that
a Joint Hindu Family had been constituted post 1957 and that all the
decrees passed by the Courts below were false and inconsequential.
31. He submitted that in law there is a presumption that every Hindu
Family which is joint in food and worship is a Joint Family; but there
234 [2025] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

is no presumption that the estate is joint or that the properties of the
family members belong to the Hindu Joint Family.
32. He stated that Sanjiv Singh (son of Anup Singh) sold a part of Barota
land to Respondent No.6 vide sale deed dated 23rd January 1992
and subsequently, the said property was sold by Respondent No.6
to one Kuldeep Khatri vide sale deed dated 12th January 2000. He
submitted that the aforesaid documents, by way of deemed fiction
incorporated in Order XII CPC stood admitted by Respondent No.6.

REJOINDER ARGUMENTS
33. In rejoinder, Mr. Dushyant Dave and Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned
senior counsel for the Appellant-plaintiff and Respondent No.6 fairly
stated that their clients were confining their relief to Barota and
Anand Niketan properties. They candidly stated that they were not
pressing any relief qua lands at Kalupur, Sonepat, Bhatgaon and
Dairy Plot at Sonepat.
34. They submitted that even if the rights with regard to Barota and
Anand Niketan properties had reverted back to Late Major General
Budh Singh they continued to remain co-parcenary properties in
which the Appellant-plaintiff and Respondent No.6 continued to
have a share. They stated that this position had been admitted by
Mr. Anup Singh in paragraph 3 of the plaint filed in Suit III (which
has been reproduced hereinabove).
35. They further submitted that decrees passed in the four suits were
not partition decrees as the said decrees had been passed in
declaratory suits.

REASONING

ORDER XII RULE 6 CPC AUTHORISES THE COURT TO DISMISS
THE SUIT ALSO
36. Having heard learned senior counsel and learned counsel for the
parties, this Court is of the view that the submission that the learned
Single Judge could have dismissed the suit under Order VII Rule 11
CPC alone and not under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and that too without
any application being filed by the Respondents, is untenable in law.
37. Recently, a coordinate Bench of this Court in Rajiv Ghosh vs. Satya
Naryan Jaiswal, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.9975 of 2025
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 235

Saroj Salkan v. Huma Singh & Ors.

dated 07th April, 2025 has upheld the view of the Division Bench of
the Delhi High Court in ITDC Limited vs. Chander Pal Sood and
Son, (2000) 84 DLT 337 (DB) that Order XII Rule 6 CPC gives a very
wide discretion to the Court to pass a judgment at any stage of the
suit and that too on its own motion i.e. without any application being
filed by any party. In the said judgment, it was also held that Order XII
Rule 6 CPC, authorises the Court to not only pass a decree regarding
admitted claim, but also to dismiss the suit. The relevant portion of
the judgment in Rajiv Ghosh (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“36. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court very correctly
laid down the following interpretation of the provision
of O. 12, R. 6, CPC, in the decision of ITDC Limited v.
Chander Pal Sood and Son, reported in (2000) 84 DLT
337 (DB): (2000 AIHC 1990) :
“Order 12, R. 6 of Code gives a very wide discretion
to the Court. Under this rule the Court may at any
stage of the suit either on the application of any party
or of its own motion and without determination of any
other question between the parties 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.”

xxx xxx xxx
39. This rule authorizes the court to enter a judgment
where a claim is admitted and to pass a decree on such
admitted claim. This can be done at any stage. [See: Uttam
Singh (supra)]. Thus, a plaintiff may move for judgment
upon admission by the defendant in his written statement
at any stage of the suit although he has joined issue on
the defence.” [See: Brown v. Pearson, (1882) 21 Ch D
716]. Likewise, a defendant may apply for dismissal of the
suit on the basis of admission by the plaintiff in rejoinder.”

EFFECT OF FOUR DECREES. APPELLANT-PLAINTIFF CANNOT
GO BEHIND THEM
38. This Court is of the opinion that it is important to appreciate the
effect of four suits filed by different parties to this litigation between
1971 and 1984.
236 [2025] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

39. Suit I for declaration (being Suit No.671/1) was filed by the present
Appellant-plaintiff along with her sister Respondent No.6 and minor
sons of their brother Anup Singh on 25th March, 1972 against Late
Major General Budh Singh and Anup Singh with respect to Barota
and Bhatgaon lands. There was no pleading in the said suit that any
HUF was created post 1957. On the contrary, in the said plaint, it was
averred by the Appellant-plaintiff and Respondent No.6 themselves
that upon a mutual partition in 1971, the land situated at Barota was
partitioned between the parties as detailed in paragraph 4 (four) of
the plaint and the land situated at Village Bhatgaon, Tehsil Sonepat
fell in the share of Anup Singh and that he was the absolute owner
and in possession of the entire land situated at Village Bhatgaon.
40. Though Suit I was decreed by mutual consent in accordance with
paragraph 4 (four) of the plaint, yet Late Major General Budh Singh
filed Suit II (being Suit No.66/1977) against his two daughters
alone i.e. Appellant-plaintiff and Respondent No.6 herein without
impleading either his son (Anup Singh) or his paternal grandsons,
who were parties to Suit I praying for a declaration that Late Major
General Budh Singh continues to be the owner of the land situated
at Village Barota and his daughters have no right or title in the said
land as the decree of the civil court dated 4th March, 1972 had been
declared a nullity by the Collector Surplus. It is pertinent to mention
that in Suit II, Late Major General Budh Singh did not pray before the
Court for a declaration of nullity of the decree dated 4th March, 1972
passed in Suit I. Late Major General Budh Singh in Suit II also did
not seek recall of the decree dated 4th March, 1972 to the extent it
granted relief to his paternal grandsons or to his son (Anup Singh).
Consequently, the Court in Sonepat had no occasion and did not
declare the decree in Suit I to be a nullity, in its entirety.
41. Therefore, on a co-joint reading of the pleadings, prayers and
judgments/decrees in Suits I and II to which the Appellant-plaintiff
and Respondent No.6 were parties along with their father (Late Major
General Budh Singh), this Court is of the view that Appellant-plaintiff
and Respondent No.6 had accepted their father as the absolute
owner of Barota land. The effect of the decree in Suit II is that
ownership of the entire Barota land stood reverted to Late Major
General Budh Singh and the Appellant-plaintiff and Respondent No.6
stood ousted from the HUF of Late Major General Budh Singh. The
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 237

Saroj Salkan v. Huma Singh & Ors.

revenue entries in the name of Appellant-plaintiff and Respondent
No.6, to their knowledge, stood declared as wrong and ineffective.
As the said decrees and findings were within the knowledge of the
Appellant-plaintiff and Respondent No.6, they are bound by the same.
Consequently, this Court is in agreement with the view of the Division
Bench in the present case that, “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. Thus, a decree by a
Court of law is for all purposes final and binding upon all parties,
including the appellant, involved therein. Such a decree, if not set
aside is for perpetuity…”.
42. Thereafter, Suit III (being Suit No.219/1977) was filed by Anup Singh
against his own father Late Major General Budh Singh praying for a
declaration that Anup Singh was the owner as well as in possession
of the Barota land covered by decrees passed in Suits I and II, except
that part of the Barota land that fell in the share of Respondent No.6
by virtue of the decree passed in Suit I. Even this portion of Barota
land which was owned by Late Major General Budh Singh (in view
of the decree passed in Suit II) was willed by him in favour of his
paternal grandsons (i.e. sons of Anup Singh). As Suit III was decreed
by consent, Barota land is governed by the same.
43. Since the decrees passed in Suits II and III were never challenged
by the Appellant-plaintiff and Respondent No.6 before any competent
Court, despite they are having knowledge of the same, they cannot
go behind the said decrees in the present proceedings and argue
on the basis that they are a nullity and do not bind them. In this
regard, the learned Single Judge has correctly observed, “averring
in a suit of the year 2007 that decree passed way back on 8.3.1977
i.e. 30 years back is to be treated as collusive and hence not binding
cannot help the plaintiff because as per the decree, the father did
act as the owner of the Barota land”.

RESPONDENT NO.6 CAN’T CONTEND THAT BAROTA IS OWNED
BY HUF/ COPARCENARY
44. Moreover, as Respondent No.6 had on her own volition purchased
part of Barota land from Sanjiv Singh (son of Anup Singh) vide
sale deed dated 23rd January 1992 and subsequently sold the said
238 [2025] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

property to a third party vide sale deed dated 12th January 2000,
this Court is of the view that Respondent No.6 is estopped from
contending that Barota property is owned by a co-parcenary/HUF
of which she is a member.

AMENDED SECTION 6 OF HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 IS
NOT APPLICABLE
45. This Court is also of the view that while the decrees in Suits II, III and
IV were declaratory decrees, yet they were grounded on the consensus
(between the parties) that the properties stood partitioned amongst
the family members. This Court says so, not only, on the basis of
admission by Appellant-plaintiff and Respondent No.6 in the plaint
filed in Suit I, but also because without a partition inter se between
the parties, the declaratory decrees could not have been passed. It is
settled law that partition need not be effected in any particular/standard
format. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that 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.
Consequently, the proviso to sub-Section 1 of amended Section 6
of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is attracted to the present case and
arguments advanced by Appellant-plaintiff and Respondent No.6 with
respect to Section 6 are not applicable to the present case.

C-38, ANAND NIKETAN HOUSE
46. As far as C-38, Anand Niketan house is concerned, it was admittedly
purchased by Late Major General Budh Singh in the year 1968
and thereafter on a request made by him, the said house was
transferred by the cooperative society to Anup Singh by a duly
registered perpetual sub-Lease Deed dated 03rd April, 1970. Despite,
the registered sub-Lease Deed in the name of Anup Singh, being
within the knowledge of the Appellant-plaintiff and Respondent No.6,
it was never challenged for thirty-seven long years prior to the filing
of the present suit. Consequently, the suit to the extent it challenges
ownership of C-38, Anand Niketan house is barred by limitation.
47. In fact, in the plaint filed in Case No.671/1 being Suit I, it was admitted
by the Appellant-plaintiff and Respondent No.6 that upon mutual
partition in 1971, the land situated in village Bhatgaon, Tehsil Sonepat
fell in the share of Anup Singh and that he was the absolute owner
and in possession of the said land. Consequently, the subsequent
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 239

Saroj Salkan v. Huma Singh & Ors.

sale of the Bhatgaon property or use of its sale proceeds to purchase
the Anand Niketan plot and construct a house thereon would not
give any cause of action to the Appellant-plaintiff and Respondent
No.6 to file a fresh suit for partition.
48. Further, the averments qua co-parcenary/Joint Hindu Family owned
ancestral property in Suit IV was only in the context of HUF of Anup
Singh and his two sons to the exclusion of Appellant-plaintiff and
Respondent No. 6. In Mayne’s Hindu Law, 11th Edition, p. 347, it has
been held that members of a branch, or of a sub-branch, can form a
distinct and separate corporate unit within the larger corporate family
and hold property as such. Such property will be joint family property
of the members of the branch inter se, but will be separate property
of that branch in relation to the larger family (See: Kalyani (Dead) by
LRs. vs. Narayanan, 1980 Supp SCC 298). Consequently, this Court
is of the opinion that the averments of co-parcenary/Joint Hindu Family/
ancestral property in Suit IV deal with the co-parcenary/HUF of Anup
Singh to the exclusion of Appellant-plaintiff and Respondent No.6 and
give no right or cause of action to the latter to file a suit for partition.
49. Also, Suit IV was premised on the basis that Appellant-plaintiff and
Respondent No.6 have no right in the properties of their father- Late
Major General Budh Singh as partition of HUF of Late Major General
Budh Singh and HUF of Anup Singh had already taken place. It was
in pursuance to the said pleadings that a decree of partition of Anand
Niketan house was passed and the said house in its entirety was
partitioned between Anup Singh and his two sons.

CONCLUSION
50. Keeping in view the aforesaid findings, this Court is of the view that
the present appeal is devoid of any merit. Accordingly, the present
appeal is dismissed.

Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain