LexSAROJ SALKAN versus HUMA SINGH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.