Sanjay Kaushish v. D.C. Kaushish

CitationAIR 1992 Delhi 118
Bench1-judge
Date of Decision10 September 1991
CategoryHUF Partition
Statutes Cited["Arbitration Act 1940 - Sections 21, 32, 33","CPC - Order VII Rule 11","Limitation Act 1963 - Articles 113, 120"]

Ratio Decidendi

A partition decree can be challenged as void if collusively fictitious and designed solely for tax reduction. No presumption of joint ownership — burden on asserter. Cause of action for HUF partition is perpetually recurring.

Headnotes

["Colourable sham partition decree challengeable as void","No presumption of joint ownership in joint family burden on asserter","Limitation for fraud begins from discovery","Cause of action for HUF partition is perpetually recurring","Partition can be sought without declaring prior decree void first"]

Full text not available for this judgment.

Our Analysis

HUF Partition Fraud: When Sham Decrees Collapse by Pradeep Banerjee · 8 April 2026