The Hon’ble Delhi High Court recently in Anchit Sachdeva & Anr v. Sudesh Sachdeva & Ors. 2024:DHC:9629 held that material details of existence of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) have to be specifically pleaded in the plaint in suits for partition of coparcenary property (or ancestral property), HUF cannot be presumed to exist.
DHC while affirming it relied upon a judgment in Surendra Kumar v Dhani Ram (2016) 227 DLT 217 of a coordinate bench. The relevant para of the said judgment is extracted as follows:
“36. The submission advanced by the learned counsel for the Plaintiff that the provisions of Order VI Rule 4 CPC is not applicable in the present case is also misconceived. A Coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Surender Kumar v. Dhani Ram21 has categorically opined that there is no presumption as to the existence of an HUF and the plaintiff is obliged to give material particulars with respect to the existence of HUF and the basis of assertion that the immovable property is a coparcenary property. The said Court held that in the absence of the material particulars the plaint would be liable for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:—
“9. I would like to further note that it is not enough to aver a mantra, so to say, in the plaint simply that a joint Hindu family
or HUF exists. Detailed facts as required by Order 6 Rule 4, CPC as to when and how the HUF properties have become
HUF properties must be clearly and categorically averred. Such averments have to be made by factual references qua each
property claimed to be an HUF property as to how the same is an HUF property, and, in law generally bringing in any and
every property as HUF property is incorrect as there is known tendency of litigants to include unnecessarily many properties
as HUF properties, and which is done for less than honest motives. Whereas prior to passing of the Hindu Succession Act,
1956 there was a presumption as to the existence of an HUF and its properties, but after passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in view of the ratios of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Chander Sen (supra) and Yudhister (supra), there is no such presumption that inheritance of ancestral property creates an HUF, and therefore, in such a post 1956 scenario a mere ipse dixit statement in the plaint that an HUF and its properties exist is not a sufficient compliance of the legal requirement of creation or existence of HUF properties inasmuch as it is necessary for existence of an HUF and its properties that it must be specifically,
stated that as to whether the HUF came into existence before 1956 or after 1956 and if so how and in what manner giving all requisite factual details. It is only in such circumstances where specific facts are mentioned to clearly plead a cause of action of
existence of an HUF and its properties, can a suit then be filed and maintained by a person claiming to be a coparcener for
partition of the HUF properties.”