https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286049 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. en-us Mon, 04 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Apr 2020 18:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286049 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 04 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286049