PARTITION SUIT, OLD DECREES AND POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY IN FAMILY PROPERTY DISPUTES

Case Name: Saroj Salkan v. Huma Singh & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 6389 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 3756 of 2023)
Date of Judgment: 06 May 2025
Quorum: Justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan

 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Saroj Salkan, the appellant, filed a partition suit claiming rights over five properties once owned by her father, Late Major General Budh Singh. She said the properties belonged to a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and that she was entitled to a share as a daughter and coparcener after the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act.

The five properties included:

• 72 acres of Barota land (with a farmhouse),
• Agricultural land in Kalupur,
• A dairy plot in Sonepat,
• Bhatgaon land (30 acres), and
• A house at C-38, Anand Niketan, New Delhi.

The suit was dismissed early by the Delhi High Court under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), saying there was no valid cause of action and that the pleadings were not detailed enough. The Division Bench of the High Court agreed with this view, and the Supreme Court upheld the decision.

 

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

1. Was the partition suit valid considering the previous civil court decrees between the family members?
2. Did the Single Judge act correctly by dismissing the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC?
3. Could the appellant rely on the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?

 

LEGAL PROVISIONS

• Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908
• Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (amended in 2005)
• Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963
• Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988

APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS

The appellant argued that:

• The properties were part of an HUF and she had a birthright in them as a daughter.
• Old court decrees (especially one from 1977) were collusive and forced upon her when she was young.
• The court wrongly dismissed the case without even framing issues for trial.
• The 2005 amendment to Section 6 gave daughters equal rights, which should be applied in her case.

RESPONDENTS’ CONTENTIONS

The respondents replied that:

• Many properties did not exist anymore or were already dealt with in earlier court cases.
• Some properties were self-acquired by their father and not part of any HUF.
• Earlier judgments already divided the property among other family members, and these were never challenged.
• The Anand Niketan house was transferred to Anup Singh in 1970 through a registered lease deed, and this too was never disputed in court.
• The appellant had no proper pleadings or documents to support her claims, and the suit was just an attempt to reopen old matters.

ANALYSIS

The Supreme Court supported the lower court’s decision to dismiss the suit early. It said:

• Order XII Rule 6 CPC lets courts dismiss suits if there’s enough admission or lack of triable issues—even without an application.

• Old decrees from the 1970s and 1980s clearly showed that the appellant and her sister had been given no share and had not challenged these decrees for over 30 years.
• Since there was no proof that their father created an HUF after 1956, or that he converted personal property into HUF property, the suit lacked legal foundation.
• The 2005 amendment to Section 6 does not help the appellant because the partition of property had already happened before 2004, as shown by earlier court orders.
• The Anand Niketan house was legally in Anup Singh’s name since 1970, and this was never legally contested. Also, any claims were time-barred.

JUDGMENT

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that the appellant had no legal right in the properties and that the suit was rightly rejected by the High Court as an abuse of court process.

 

CONCLUSION

This judgment makes several important points:

• Courts can dismiss suits early if the facts are clearly against the plaintiff and there’s no need for trial.
• If earlier judgments are not challenged, they are considered final and binding.
• The 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act doesn’t apply to properties already partitioned before 2004.
• Proper documents and facts are essential when making claims in property suits.

The judgment sends a strong message that old property disputes cannot be revived without solid proof. It also warns against using clever drafting or vague claims to misuse the legal system. The court emphasised the need to respect finality in litigation and avoid wasting judicial time.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

 WRITTEN BY PRIYANKA DESHIKAN.