JABALPUR, India, June 9 -- Madhya Pradesh High Court issued the following judgment/order on May 8:

1. Present petition is preferred by the defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing order dated 06.03.2026 passed in RCSA/171/2025 by Vth Additional District Judge, Dewas, District Dewas in a suit filed by the respondent No.1 for declaration and injunction, whereby the application filed by petitioner under Order VI Rule 16 of CPC was dismissed.

2. Short facts of the case are that, petitioner (hereinafter referred as defendant) and respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred as plaintiff) and other defendants are the members of Hindu Undivided family (hereinafter referred as 'HUF'). The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction in respect of the property bearing survey no. 719/1 and 720 of Village |Khatamba District Dewas and survey no.170/5/2 of Village Bilwali, District Dewas on the ground that these two properties were purchased in the name of defendant through registered sale deeds from the nucleus of the HUF andthese properties are the not self-acquired properties of defendant no. 2. It is further pleaded in the plaint that the defendant No.2 has dedicated these properties for the benefit of HUF as the properties were purchased by HUF in the name of defendant No.2. By way of amendment, it is also incorporated in the petition that one of the property has already been auctioned by the bank in the proceedings initiated under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as 'SARFAESI ACT 2002') and the residue amount after the auction be not handed over to the defendant No.2 as the HUF is entitled to get that amount from the bank.

3. After appearance, the petitioner/defendant No.2 moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint, which was also dismissed by the impugned order, however, the said part of the order is not under challenge in the instant petition.

4. Another application is moved on behalf of defendant No.2 under Order VI Rule 16 for striking off the pleadings in the plaint on the ground that the pleadings are self contradictory as the plaintiff on the one hand has pleaded that the properties were purchased by HUF itself from the nucleus of the HUF in the name of defendant No.2 for the benefit of family and on the other hand the plaintiff has pleaded that defendant No.2 has dedicated the properties to HUF for use of the family.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://mphc.gov.in/storage/upload/indore/MPHCIND/2026/MP/2037/MP_2037_2026_FinalOrder_08-05-2026_digi.pdf)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.