RAJESH KUMAR MALHOTRA Vs. SHISHUPAL MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IA No. 5711/2016 (U/O VII Rule 11 CPC)

(2.) Mr. Vibhu Bakhru, J. - This is an application filed on behalf of the defendant under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, inter alia, praying that the suit be dismissed. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the defendant/applicant submits that the present suit is premised on the basis that the Will propounded by the defendant is invalid and further on the basis that the properties sought to be partitioned were purchased from the funds generated from the joint ancestral business. The learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to the following pleadings:-

(3.) He submits that apart from the aforesaid pleadings, the plaintiff has made any specific averments or provided any material particulars to sustain a claim of the suit properties being joint HUF properties. He further referred to a decision of this Court in Neelam and Anr. v. Sada Ram and Ors.: CS(OS) 823/2010, decided on 30.01.2013 in support of his contention that there is a difference between coparcenary or HUF Properties and ancestral properties. He further referred to a decision of this court in Sunny (Minor) and Anr. v. Sh. Raj Singh and Ors.: 225 (2015) DLT 211 and on the strength of the said decision, submitted that in the event, the plaintiff seeks to set up a case of coparcenary or joint HUF properties acquired after 1956 (that is, after the Hindu Succession Act,1956 came into force), it would be necessary for the plaintiff to plead necessary particulars to indicate that the properties purchased were given the character of an HUF property and merely making a statement that properties were purchased from ancestral HUF funds would be sufficient.