HUF property claim over a Hindu female's asset failed where benami ownership and grandson's birthright share were unsubstantiated.

A partition claim over property standing in the name of a Hindu female was held untenable where the plaint contained only a bare assertion that the asset was bought from family funds and held benami for the HUF. The court noted there were no particulars of the alleged source of funds, the earlier property, any relinquishment, or any treatment of the asset as HUF property, and that a Hindu female cannot blend separate property into HUF stock in the manner of a coparcener. It further held that a benami plea for HUF ownership is barred, and that succession to the female owner's property would occur under the Hindu Succession Act through her heirs, not by a grandson asserting a birthright share. The suit was dismissed with costs.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suit for partition of the property standing in the name of the plaintiff's paternal grandmother could be maintained on the plea that it was HUF property acquired from family funds and held benami, and whether the plaintiff as grandson had any share in it.

Analysis: The property had been acquired in the name of the female owner through a perpetual lease long before the suit, and the plaint contained only a bald assertion that it was purchased from funds allegedly received on partition of another property. No supporting particulars were pleaded as to the source of funds, the status of the earlier property, the manner of relinquishment, or any treatment of the later property as HUF property. A Hindu female is not a coparcener, cannot blend her separate property into HUF stock in the manner available to a male coparcener, and a plea that she held the property benami for the HUF is barred by the law against benami transactions. On the plaintiff's own case, the property would, on the death of the female owner, devolve on her heirs under the Hindu Succession Act and not on a grandson claiming a birthright in an HUF interest.

Conclusion: The suit for partition was not maintainable and the plaintiff had no enforceable share in the property.

Final Conclusion: The claim that the property formed part of the HUF of the plaintiff's paternal grandfather was rejected, and the suit was dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A property acquired in the name of a Hindu female cannot be treated as HUF property on a bare plea of family funds or benami holding, and a grandson cannot claim partition on that basis when succession would lie through the female owner's heirs under the Hindu Succession Act.

---