When the plaintiff pleads for claim over property, it is important that the details of such property in its entirety are disclosed and vague disclosure of facts cannot be admissible in court. This was decided in the case of Master Ansh Kapoor & Anr V. K.B. Kapur & Ors [CS(OS) 3438/2014 and IA No. 3789/2016] in the High Court Of Delhi by Hon’ble Justice Jayant Nath.
This suit is filed seeking a preliminary decree of partition of the suit properties. In this case Chand Kapoor, the great grandfather of the plaintiffs is said to have acquired the property in Darya Ganj which is said to be an HUF property. He had two sons, namely, defendant No. 1 and Sh. Parvesh Kapur and four daughters. After his death, his estate fell in the hands of his sons his estate fell in the hands of his sons. The plaintiffs by birth have a right in the said property. Hence, the property retains its ancestral character and the plaintiffs are coparceners in such ancestral property. All the properties, which are subject matter of this suit, were bought from the sale proceeds of the Darya Ganj HUF property. the plaintiffs has reiterated that the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/8th share in the suit properties owned by their great grandfather who died intestate.
The court noted that the matter is at the stage of framing of issues. It said that it is settled position of law that CPC does not require all matters to be decided only after trial or unless admissions are made. Issues are to be framed on material proposition of law and facts which the plaintiff alleges in order to show a right to sue or the defendant must allege in order to constitute his defence.
The court referred the case of Promod Kumar Jain & Ors. vs. Ram Kali Jain & Ors., MANU/DE/1115/2020 where the court held as follows: “mere clever drafting by advocates cannot compel the Courts to put a suit to trial and the Court is entitled to see through and clear the maze sought to be raised and see what the real defence is, it is not as if the CPC requires all matters to be decided only after trial, unless admissions are made; ) issues are to be framed on material propositions of law or fact which a plaintiff must allege in order to show a right to sue or a defendant must allege in order to constitute his defence”
The court observed that the legal position as noted above is quite clear. Under Order 6 Rule 4 CPC, there is a legal requirement to provide all necessary factual details of the cause of action which must be clearly stated. Once it is claimed that the property was thrown into a common hotch-potch, it is necessary that the exact details of the specific date, month, year, etc. of creation of the HUF for the first time by throwing the property into a hotch-potch must be clearly pleaded. Averments have also to be made by factual reference to each property claimed to be an HUF property as to how the same is an HUF property. As noted above by a Coordinate bench of this court in the aforementioned case that there is a known tendency of litigants to include unnecessarily many properties as HUF properties, which is done for less than an honest motive.
The court held “the plaintiffs have failed to show any meaningful cause of action that has arisen in their favour. The plaint fails to disclose a CS(OS) 3438/2014 Page 24 of 24 cause of action and is completely devoid of merits on the face of it. It accordingly is required to be dismissed at this stage. The suit and pending applications stand dismissed.”
