HUF property proof failed where ancestry, blending, and family settlement were not established for partition claims.

A claim for partition and rendition of accounts failed because the plaintiffs did not prove that the suit properties were Hindu Undivided Family properties. The court noted that an HUF had to be shown to exist before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, or there had to be clear proof that self-acquired property was blended into a common hotchpotch. The pleadings and evidence did not establish when the family entity arose, when the relevant ancestors died, or any specific act of blending. Mere description of property as ancestral was insufficient, and the alleged family settlement was not proved by reliable evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suit properties were proved to be Hindu Undivided Family properties so as to support a claim for partition and rendition of accounts, and whether the alleged family settlement was proved.

Analysis: The claim depended on proving either that a Hindu Undivided Family existed before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 so that inherited property retained the character of joint family property, or that a family member had subsequently thrown self-acquired property into a common hotchpotch. The pleadings and evidence did not disclose when the alleged family entity came into existence, when the relevant ancestors died, or any specific act of blending. Mere description of property as ancestral was held insufficient. The alleged properties were also found to be vague, unparticularised, or unsupported by credible documentary proof. The alleged admission in an earlier written statement was not proved in accordance with law and, even otherwise, did not establish an HUF. The alleged family settlement was likewise not proved by reliable evidence.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs failed to prove that the suit properties were HUF properties or that any family settlement existed. The claim for partition and rendition of accounts was rejected.

---