The Delhi High Court has ruled that daughters can independently claim their coparcenary rights share in family property, even if a father had signed an old family settlement. Past compromises do not block statutory rights under the Hindu Succession Act.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging a partition suit filed by a daughter seeking to enforce her coparcenary rights under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Bench, comprising Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, upheld the Single Judge’s decision.
Case Background
The matter arose from a civil suit (CS(OS) 1965/2012) filed by Ms. Sonakshi Gupta, who sought partition, rendition of accounts, and injunction regarding the properties of the “L.R. Gupta HUF.” The plaintiff claimed she was a coparcener under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (as amended in 2005). Her cause of action arose when the amendment came into force on September 9, 2005, and further accrued upon attaining majority on May 18, 2009.
Ms. Gupta alleged that the defendants were selling and alienating HUF properties without her consent and had refused her repeated requests for partition in November 2011 and March 2012.
The defendants, led by Mr. Sanjay Gupta, filed applications under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), seeking the rejection of the plaint because it disclosed no cause of action and was barred by law.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments:
Senior Advocate Mr. Manish Vashisht argued that the dispute had already been settled under a 2006 compromise decree in a previous suit (CS 1968/2003), which recorded that the family branches had separated as early as 1993. The appellant claimed:
- The suit was a collateral challenge to the 2006 decree.
- Even if the plaintiff is a coparcener in her father’s HUF, she cannot claim against the larger L.R. Gupta HUF, which had ceased to exist.
- The plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC for raising settled issues.
The appellant relied on Supreme Court rulings, including K Akbar Ali v. K Umar Khan and Rohit Chauhan v. Surinder Singh.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The plaintiff’s counsel countered that:
- She was not a party to the 2006 compromise decree as she was a minor at the time.
- She holds an independent statutory right as a coparcener under the amended Hindu Succession Act.
- Ongoing acts of alienation and construction by the defendants constitute successive and continuing causes of action.
- The objections raised by the appellant involve triable issues, which cannot be decided at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11.
Court’s Analysis
The Delhi High Court emphasized that Order VII Rule 11 CPC is a drastic measure and must be exercised cautiously. The Court held:
- The complaint clearly disclosed a cause of action, detailing the plaintiff’s statutory rights, dates of accrual, and specific acts of alienation by the defendants.
- The 2006 compromise decree was inter se between her father and the defendants; since the plaintiff was a minor and not a party, she was not bound by it.
- The plaintiff’s claim for partition is broader than a mere declaration, so challenging the 2006 decree under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, was not necessary.
- Citing precedents, the Court clarified that factual disputes such as the existence of a HUF or coparcenary property require evidence and cannot be dismissed summarily.
Judgment
The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, stating:
“The jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, being a drastic power to terminate proceedings at the threshold, cannot be invoked where the plaint discloses a cause of action requiring adjudication.”
This ruling reinforces the rights of daughters under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, allowing them to claim coparcenary rights even when prior family settlements exist independently.
Case Title:
Sanjay Gupta v. Sonakshi Gupta and Ors.
FAO(OS) 37/2025 and CM APPL. 16325/2025
READ JUDGMENT
READ MORE REPORTS ON PROPERTY RIGHTS