The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the dismissal of the partition suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, emphasizing that the court can dismiss a suit based on admissions without a formal application. It ruled that the decrees from prior suits, which were never challenged, conclusively determined the ownership of the properties, barring any fresh claims. The Court held that the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, did not apply as the properties were partitioned before the cutoff date of 20th December 2004. Additionally, the suit for Anand Niketan house was barred by limitation, and the claims lacked sufficient pleadings to establish an HUF or coparcenary rights. The judgment reinforced the finality of unappealed decrees and the necessity of precise pleadings in partition suits.
Facts Of The Case:
The case involves a dispute over the partition of five properties owned by Late Major General Budh Singh among his legal heirs. The appellant, Saroj Salkan (daughter), filed a suit under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, seeking partition, injunction, and accounts against her brother Anup Singh’s legal heirs (Respondents 1-5) and her sister Sharda Hooda (Respondent 6). The properties in question included agricultural lands in Barota, Kalupur, Bhatgaon, a dairy plot in Sonepat, and a house in Anand Niketan, New Delhi.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, citing lack of cause of action and insufficient pleadings, and directed the appellant to approach the competent court in Sonepat for the Barota land. The appellant challenged this decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that the properties were ancestral and part of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), entitling her to a share. However, the respondents contended that the properties were self-acquired or already partitioned through prior decrees in suits filed between 1972 and 1984, which were never challenged.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, ruling that the prior decrees were binding and that the appellant failed to establish her claim over the properties as HUF assets. The Court also held that the suit for the Anand Niketan house was barred by limitation.
Procedural History:
The case originated with a partition suit filed by Saroj Salkan (Appellant) before the Delhi High Court, seeking division of five properties allegedly belonging to her late father’s Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The learned Single Judge dismissed the suit under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, holding that the pleadings lacked essential details and no cause of action was disclosed. The court also noted that the Barota land fell under the jurisdiction of Sonepat courts. The Appellant then appealed before a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, which upheld the dismissal, observing that the suit was based on vague claims and that prior decrees in related suits (dating back to 1972–1984) had already settled ownership disputes.
The Division Bench further criticized the Appellant for initiating litigation without proper legal basis. Aggrieved, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court via Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3756 of 2023, which was converted into Civil Appeal No. 6389 of 2025. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision, ruling that the prior decrees were binding, the suit was barred by limitation for certain properties, and the Appellant failed to prove the existence of an HUF. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, upholding the procedural and substantive findings of the lower courts.
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made several key observations while dismissing the appeal. It held that Order XII Rule 6 CPC empowers courts to dismiss a suit based on admissions in pleadings, even without a formal application, reinforcing judicial discretion in expediting litigation. The Court emphasized that the prior decrees (1972-1984), which were never challenged, conclusively determined property rights and barred fresh claims under principles of res judicata and finality of judgments.
On the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) claim, the Court noted the absence of specific pleadings proving ancestral ownership or post-1956 creation of an HUF, observing that mere assertions without factual backing were insufficient. It clarified that the 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act did not apply, as the properties were effectively partitioned before the cutoff date (20 December 2004). The Court also highlighted that the Anand Niketan property, transferred in 1970, could not be contested after 37 years, making the suit barred by limitation.
Additionally, the Court rejected the argument that prior decrees were “sham,” noting that the Appellant and Respondent No. 6 had actively participated in those suits and were bound by their outcomes. It condemned the belated litigation as an abuse of process, affirming the High Court’s view that frivolous claims waste judicial resources. The judgment underscored the necessity of precise pleadings in partition suits and the sanctity of unappealed judicial decisions.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decisions of the Delhi High Court and affirming that the partition suit was rightly rejected under Order XII Rule 6 CPC due to insufficient pleadings and lack of cause of action. The Court held that the prior decrees (1972–1984), which had never been challenged, conclusively settled the ownership disputes, making the appellant’s claims unsustainable. It ruled that the 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act did not apply, as the properties had already been partitioned before the cutoff date (20 December 2004). Additionally, the suit for the Anand Niketan property was barred by limitation, as the appellant failed to contest its ownership for over 37 years. The Court emphasized that unsubstantiated HUF claims and belated litigation amounted to an abuse of judicial process, reinforcing the principle that decrees, once finalized, attain permanence unless legally overturned. The judgment reiterated the necessity of clear and specific pleadings in partition suits and upheld the finality of judicial decisions, closing all avenues for further litigation on the disputed properties. No costs were awarded, and the appeal stood dismissed in its entirety.
Case Details:
Case Title: Saroj Salkan vs. Huma Singh & Ors. Citation: 2025 INSC 632 Civil Appeal No.: Civil Appeal No. 6389 of 2025 Date of Judgment: 6th May 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan
Download The Judgement Here