SUNIL KUMAR MITTAL Vs. MADHU GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision has been preferred under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the order dtd. 6/12/2021, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun in Original Suit No.08 of 2021, "Smt. Madhu Garg vs. Manish Garg and Others ", whereby, the application, filed by the revisionist " defendant no.7 under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., has been rejected.

(2.) Heard Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for the revisionist " defendant no.7 and Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 - plaintiff.

(3.) The said Original Suit (No.08 of 2021) was filed by the respondent no.1 " plaintiff against the revisionist " defendant no.7 and respondent nos.2 to 7 seeking relief for partition of her 1/5 share in the property-in-question and for rendition of accounts of income from out of the rental/ sale of the properties of the Hindu Undivided Family. In the said Original Suit, the revisionist " defendant no.7 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. on the ground that Shri Krishan Chand Mittal, father of the plaintiff, died on 22/1/2003. An amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was brought by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which came into effect on 9/9/2005 and prior to the amendment of 2005 under the Hindu Succession Act, Sec. 23 of the Hindu Succession Act disentitles a female heir to ask for partition in respect of properties of the joint family until the male heirs choose to divide their respective shares therein. The law, prevailing prior to such amendment, shall prevail under the present case, and, not the law that has come into effect by the Amendment Act, 2005. Therefore, the suit for partition of the joint family property, brought by the plaintiff, is legally barred under law, and is legally not maintainable.