In RFA(OS) 51/2016-DEL HC- Statements made by party before Court of law in pleadings cannot create right in favour of such or other party unless same is backed by or proven by documentary/ oral evidence: Delhi HC 
Justices Suresh Kumar Kait & Saurabh Banerjee [15-11-2022]

Read Order: SAROJ SALKAN v. HUMA SINGH & ORS 

Mansimran Kaur

New Delhi, November 16,2022: Law of pleadings in a suit require the party, while approaching the Court to comply with the basic parameters set out in Order II rules 1, 2 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Delhi High Court has observed.

A Division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Saurabh Banerjee dismissed the instant appeal by observing that it failed to find any infirmity, perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment and decree dated May 5, 2016 passed by the Single Judge. 

Appellant - original plaintiff through the  present appeal was seeking  to set-aside the impugned  Judgment and Decree dated May 5, 2016 whereby the  Single Judge, exercising powers under Order XII rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 passed a decree dismissing the suit of appellant as per Section 2(2), of the Code with respect to all the five ancestral properties and  granted  liberty to appellant, being a daughter of late Gen. Budh Singh (hereinafter referred as late General), owner of the Barota, Sonepat land, for approaching the competent court qua one of said the property situated beyond jurisdiction of this Court and also held the suit being barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, as admitted and/ or undisputed position of the pleadings and documents did not show existence of HUF and its properties.

 Parties herein were  lineal descendants of late General as appellant and  the sixth respondent was his daughter  whereas respondent nos- one to five  5 were the legal heirs of late Mr. Anup Singh, son of late General and brother of appellant and sixth  respondent . 

Appellant herein instituted a Suit for Partition, Rendition of Accounts and Permanent Injunction against the aforesaid respondents claiming partition of her 1/4th undivided share in the ancestral properties of the late General HUF as she was a coparcener therein under The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (as amended in 2005) and alternatively sought partition of her share in the  five ancestral properties of the late General. 

The subject matter of the present appeal was that the counsel for appellant, amongst various grounds pleaded,  primarily argued qua existence of an HUF and that being a daughter of late General, she had  an inherent right over the ancestral properties which fell into his share. 

After considering the rival contentions, and after going through all the documents, pondered upon the position of law qua pleadings and the rights of a party like the appellant herein, the Court noted that  the disputes in this appeal were arising out of and primarily revolving around a Suit for Partition, hence  this Court deemed  it prudent to, before venturing into the factual interpretation of the disputes involved, to give an overview of the law involved in such suits, especially like the present one involving issues like partition.

 A party approaching a Court of law has to base its claim upon the twin pillars comprising law of pleadings and law of limitation at the very inception so as to lay a platform for moving ahead towards the desired/ final decision. Both law of pleadings and law of limitation are the guiding factors and form the basic essence for such a party approaching the Court, the Court noted. 

In view of the same, it was further noted that the Law of pleadings in a suit of the aforesaid nature require the party, while approaching the Court to comply with the basic parameters set out in Order II rules 1, 2 and 4 of the Code whereby such party is required to frame the suit in such a manner that it makes out proper grounds for enabling the Court to arrive at a final conclusion over the issues under challenge so as to prevent any further litigation.

 It is also mandatory for such parties to, in such a suit, include the whole of the claim to which it is entitled in respect of the whole of the cause of action, subject to relinquishing any portion of the claim for the purposes of jurisdiction. Lastly, such party shall not be allowed to join a cause of action qua certain relief(s) of mesne profits, arrears of rent, damages for breach or such other without leave of the Court.

 Law of pleadings further requires that in terms of Order VII rules 1 and 3 of the Code every plaint shall always contain the requisite particulars, amongst others, most importantly the facts constituting the cause of action and when it arose, along with a description of the property sufficient to identify it, as would be, where the subject matter in the suit is pertaining to an immovable property, the Court stated. 

In addition to all the above, law of limitation in a suit of the aforesaid nature requires the party approaching to comply with the basic parameters set out in Section 3 and the Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 , the Court further remarked. 

It is only after a platform has been successfully laid over the pivotal twin pillars by the party approaching, that the Court proceeds for settlement of issues under Order XIV rule 1 of the Code to determine the suit before it, the Court opined. 

Applying the aforesaid law of pleadings and law of limitation in the perspective of the present case, as to whether pleadings made by appellant before the Single Judge were within the contours of the aforesaid provisions of the Code and the Limitation Act, a reading of the plaint reveals that appellant   all along was under an apprehension that each of the five properties in the hands of late General were ancestral as there was no specific and/ or even vague averment regarding the lineage, time or like.

 Not only that, though appellant for the first time pleaded at the time of rejoinder arguments that the five properties were thrown into the common hotchpotch. The same was again missing qua any particulars, if the ancestral properties were put in the common hotchpotch then they were self-acquired property in whose name, when were they put in the common hotchpotch and how were they put in so. 

In any event it was not clear as to whether  the five ancestral properties were actually ancestral in the hands of the late General as in either case, appellant had failed to disclose anything qua the name/s, timeline/s, property details or like details thereof, the Court noted. 

In the present case, there was  no evident cause of action arising or which has arisen or which is live in favor of appellant from the pleadings, especially qua the Barota land as based on the admissions made by appellant and the sixth respondent, the Court at the outset observed. 

Appellant by virtue of a fresh suit cannot be allowed to claim something contrary to what had already been adjudicated by a Court of law way back on March 8, 1977 at the time of disposal of Suit II qua the Barota land, more so, when she herself was a party who had made an admission therein. 

In view of the above, the Court failed to find any infirmity, perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment and decree dated May 5, 2016 passed by the Single Judge. 

As a result, the appeal was dismissed.