SAROJ SALKAN versus HUMA SINGH & ORS.

SAROJ SALKAN versus HUMA SINGH & ORS.

The appeal was dismissed because Order XII Rule 6 CPC empowers the court to dismiss the suit or pass judgment on admitted facts even on its own motion; the prior declaratory decrees (Suits II, III and IV) and admitted pleadings established that the appellant and respondent no.6 had accepted the father as owner and were ousted from the properties, those decrees were not and could have been timely challenged and therefore bind the parties, the proviso to amended Section 6 applies as partitions were recognised before 20-12-2004, and the challenge to title of C-38 Anand Niketan is barred by limitation.

Parties
Appellant Plaintiff: Saroj Salkan; Respondents: Huma Singh & Ors.; Respondent No.6: Sharda Hooda
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / On Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Partition, Order XII Rule 6 CPC, Order VII Rule 11 CPC, Judgment on Admissions, Limitation, Estoppel, Hindu Undivided Family (huf), Coparcenary
Civil Procedure Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Family Law Property Law Partition Order XII Rule 6 CPC Order VII Rule 11 CPC Judgment on Admissions +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Saroj Salkan

Appellant Plaintiff

Huma Singh & Ors.

Respondents

Sharda Hooda

Respondent No.6

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / On Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Single Judge lawfully dismissed the partition suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC on the basis of admissions and pleadings
  2. 2 Whether dismissal should have been under Order VII Rule 11 CPC only and/or required an application by respondents
  3. 3 Effect of prior declaratory decrees on the present suit and whether the appellant can go behind those decrees

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because Order XII Rule 6 CPC empowers the court to dismiss the suit or pass judgment on admitted facts even on its own motion; the prior declaratory decrees (Suits II, III and IV) and admitted pleadings established that the appellant and respondent no.6 had accepted the father as owner and were ousted from the properties, those decrees were not and could have been timely challenged and therefore bind the parties, the proviso to amended Section 6 applies as partitions were recognised before 20-12-2004, and the challenge to title of C-38 Anand Niketan is barred by limitation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Impugned judgment and order dated 15.11.2022 of the High Court of Delhi upheld
  • Decree dated 05.05.2016 passed by the Single Judge in CS(OS) No. 683/2007 dismissing the partition suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC upheld