Partition suit pleadings must show joint family nucleus and title basis; vague coparcenary claims can be rejected at threshold.

A plaint seeking partition of alleged Hindu undivided family properties was held liable to rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC because the pleaded facts did not disclose a sustainable cause of action. The court noted that, after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, there is no presumption that inherited property becomes coparcenary property; the claimant must specifically plead the joint family nucleus, ancestral source, and the manner in which each asset became joint family property. Properties standing in the grandmother's name, as well as interests in businesses and firm assets, were not shown by concrete pleadings to be available for partition, and prior partition pleadings indicated that shares had already been ascertained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for not disclosing a cause of action or for being barred by law; (ii) Whether the plaint contained the necessary factual pleadings to establish a Hindu undivided family, coparcenary, and joint family nucleus; (iii) Whether the properties claimed, including the property in the name of the grandmother and the alleged family businesses, were available for partition.

Issue (i): Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for not disclosing a cause of action or for being barred by law.

Analysis: The plaint had to be read meaningfully and the necessary factual ingredients of the asserted right had to appear from the pleadings themselves. A plaint based on vague assertions, clever drafting, or illusory claims could be rejected at the threshold. On the pleaded facts, there was no averment of any specific ancestral property, specific estate, or identifiable business having devolved upon the grandfather from the great-grandfather, and the asserted claim depended on assumptions not supported by the plaint.

Conclusion: The plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaint contained the necessary factual pleadings to establish a Hindu undivided family, coparcenary, and joint family nucleus.

Analysis: After the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, there is no presumption that inheritance creates a Hindu undivided family property or coparcenary. The party asserting joint family property must plead and show the necessary nucleus and the manner in which each property became joint family property. The plaint did not provide factual particulars showing any pre-existing joint family nucleus, any inherited ancestral estate, or any clear blending of separate property into the common stock. The alleged reliance on family arrangements, income-tax material, and general assertions of joint dealings was insufficient without concrete pleadings.

Conclusion: The plaint did not satisfactorily plead the existence of a Hindu undivided family nucleus or coparcenary rights in the properties claimed.

Issue (iii): Whether the properties claimed, including the property in the name of the grandmother and the alleged family businesses, were available for partition.

Analysis: Properties held by partnership firms and companies could not automatically be treated as coparcenary property. The property at C-117, East of Kailash stood in the name of the grandmother by registered conveyance and was treated as her separate property. A grant to a displaced person was held to be self-acquired, and the materials did not establish that the property was held benami or that the blending doctrine applied. Further, even assuming any coparcenary once existed, the pleaded history of partitions showed that the shares had already been ascertained, thereby dissolving the coparcenary. Branch-wise partition was not recognised on the facts pleaded.

Conclusion: The claimed properties were not shown to be available or capable of partition.

Final Conclusion: The suit was held not maintainable on the pleaded facts, and the plaint was rejected at the threshold. The interim arrangement was consequently vacated.

Ratio Decidendi: In a suit claiming joint family or coparcenary rights, the plaint must itself plead specific facts showing the existence of joint family nucleus and the manner in which each property became joint family property, and in the absence of such pleadings the plaint is liable to rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

---