In Brief
A woman (appellant) sought partition of five properties allegedly owned by a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) of her late father, claiming rights under the amended Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The trial court dismissed the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC based on admissions and lack of particulars; the High Court upheld this. The Supreme Court affirmed dismissal, holding that: (1) Order XII Rule 6 CPC allows courts to dismiss suits on their own motion based on pleading admissions; (2) the appellant was bound by decrees from earlier suits (1972–1977) confirming partition of properties and the father's ownership, which she never challenged for 30 years; (3) amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 did not apply as partitions predated 20 December 2004; and (4) respondent no.6's purchase and sale of part of Barota land estopped her from claiming it remained coparcenary property.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.