1992 (7) TMI 351 - HC - Indian Laws

Court dismisses fraud claim in partition decree, upholds son's right to claim partition. Validity of legal rights enforcement proceedings confirmed.

Rajinder Kumar Khanna and Ors. Versus R.K. Bajaj and Ors.

Rajinder Kumar Khanna and Ors. Versus R.K. Bajaj and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the partition decree dated 9.11.1989 was obtained by collusion and fraud.2. Whether the property in question was a Joint Hindu Family (HUF) property.3. Whether a son can claim partition of HUF property during the lifetime of his father.4. The plaintiff's right to challenge the partition decree.5. The applicability of Section 281 of the Income Tax Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the partition decree dated 9.11.1989 was obtained by collusion and fraud:The plaintiff alleged that the partition decree dated 9.11.1989 was obtained through collusion and fraud to create a ground for eviction under Section 14-C of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The plaintiff argued that the decree was null and void, as it was a result of a fraudulent scheme designed by defendant No. 3 and his family to evict the plaintiff from the premises. However, the defendants denied these allegations, asserting that the property was indeed HUF property and the partition was genuine. The court noted that there was no prima facie evidence of fraud or collusion in obtaining the partition decree. The assessment orders from the Income Tax Authorities indicated that the property was assessed as HUF property, supporting the defendants' claim.2. Whether the property in question was a Joint Hindu Family (HUF) property:The plaintiff contended that the property was not purchased from the funds of the HUF, but was the personal property of defendant No. 3. However, the defendants provided evidence, including assessment orders from the Income Tax Authorities, showing that the property was assessed as HUF property. The court found that there was sufficient material on record to infer that the property was indeed HUF property, managed under the name 'M/s Dev Raj Bajaj and Sons.'3. Whether a son can claim partition of HUF property during the lifetime of his father:The plaintiff argued that a son could not claim partition of HUF property during the lifetime of his father. However, the court referred to a Division Bench judgment in Nanak Chand and others v. Chander Kishore, AIR 1982 Delhi 520, which held that in Delhi, a son can ask for partition of HUF property during his father's lifetime. The court also cited the Supreme Court judgment in Puttangamma v. M.S. Ranganna, AIR 1968 Supreme Court 1018, which stated that a member of a Joint Hindu Family can bring about separation in status by a definite, unequivocal, and unilateral declaration of intention to separate.4. The plaintiff's right to challenge the partition decree:The plaintiff claimed the right to challenge the partition decree on the grounds of fraud and collusion. The court acknowledged that under Section 44 of the Evidence Act, any party to a suit may show that a judgment, order, or decree was obtained by fraud or collusion. The court concluded that if a tenant can challenge a partition decree in eviction proceedings, they can also challenge it through a separate suit. However, the court found no prima facie case of fraud or collusion in the partition decree and thus dismissed the plaintiff's application.5. The applicability of Section 281 of the Income Tax Act:The plaintiff argued that the suit was not maintainable due to the bar contained in Section 281 of the Income Tax Act. However, the court did not find this argument persuasive. The defendants contended that the property was acquired from the funds of the ancestral property and was HUF property, which was supported by the assessment orders from the Income Tax Authorities.Conclusion:The court dismissed the plaintiff's application, finding no prima facie evidence of fraud or collusion in the partition decree. The court held that the property was HUF property and that a son could claim partition during the lifetime of his father. The plaintiff's right to challenge the decree was acknowledged, but the court found no merit in the allegations of fraud or collusion. The balance of convenience was not in favor of the plaintiff, and the proceedings initiated by defendant No. 3 to enforce his legal rights were deemed legitimate.