Forum: District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Judgment Date: 19 July 2025
Case Type: Suit for Partition
Background
The case concerns a long-standing intra-family dispute over three immovable properties located in the vicinity of Safdarjung Enclave, Arjun Nagar and Humayunpur, New Delhi. The plaintiff, claiming one-half share as a co-parcener in alleged joint Hindu family properties, sought partition of all the three properties. In the said suit, rights were challenged both on factual grounds and on the basis of the marital status under Hindu law.
Many significant judgments were considered by the Court while adjudicating the present matter, the most recent being Angadi Chandranna v. Shankar and Ors., 2025 SCC OnLineSC 877, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the presumption of a property being a joint family property arises only if the existence of a sufficiently proven joint family nucleus is established. The person claiming such property must prove such a connection as a matter of fact, and not merely on the basis of probability. The onus remains on the person asserting joint family or ancestral rights.
The court also relied upon Amit Johri vs Deepak Johri and Ors, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 822, which clarified the distinction between joint property, joint family property and ancestral property under the Mitakshara School. The judgment reiterated that mere existence of a Joint Hindu family does not create a presumption of joint family property; clear documentary evidence and detailed pleading are required to substantiate such claims.
Strategy and Approach
Our firm represented Defendant No. 3 and her children [Defendant No. 1 (f) to 1(h)], who were parties to the suit.The firm adopted a meticulously structured defence strategy focusing on factual and documentary evidence to counter the Plaintiff’s partition claim. The primary approach revolved around challenging the Plaintiff’s assertions regarding the nature of properties in dispute, particularly distinguishing between ancestral and self-acquired properties.
It was argued that the Plaintiff failed to produce any documentary evidence or relevant witnesses to substantiate alleged claims of mutual family settlement regarding properties at Humayunpur and Arjun Nagar. It was successfully established before the Hon’ble Court that properties situated at Arjun Nagar were self-acquired properties of Defendant No. 1, supported by examination and cross-examination of concerned witnesses, including the Delhi Development Authorities.
A chronological approach was implemented to expose contradictions in the Plaintiff’s case, particularly regarding the allotment of Safdarjung property. By establishing that the property had been allotted to Defendant No. 3 a year prior to whatsoever claims made by the Plaintiff in the suit, we were able to refute the concocted averments made by Plaintiff. Moreover, the original DDA allotment records and payment documents were also placed on record, which demonstrated that the Safdarjung flat had been allotted to Defendant No. 3 in her name and not as part of any joint family transaction.
Analysis
Insufficient Claims and Supporting Documents
The plaintiff failed to furnish documentary evidence to prove that the properties demonstrate the character of ancestral or joint family assets. No title deeds were produced to show ownership by the father of Defendant no. 1 or to demonstrate the existence of a Hindu Undivided Family prior to 1956. The cited judgments and supporting materials, including prior statements and injunction proceedings, did not conclusively establish ancestral lineage or the plaintiff’s coparcenary rights as required under law.
Independent Possession and Self-Acquisition
The defendants contended that the Arjun Nagar property was independently acquired and held by Defendant no. 1, supported by decades of uninterrupted possession, payment of municipal dues, and absence of any credible evidence suggesting they formed part of a joint Hindu family nucleus. The court accepted that no presumption of ancestral character could be drawn. It was further held by the court that the Safdarjung flat, although allotted after demolition of a property at Arjun Nagar, was sanctioned in the name of Defendant no. 3. This was substantiated through original DDA allotment documents and payment receipts solely executed by the Defendant no. 3.
Marital Status and Legitimacy Concerns
The plaintiff alleged that Defendant no. 1’s relationship with Defendant no.3 was void due to the subsistence of his earlier marriage. The court noted that no decree of divorce had been filed between Defendant no. 1 and his first wife but refrained from deciding on the validity of his subsequent relationship with Defendant no. 3. We submitted that even if the marriage was void, the children born from that union would still be entitled to inheritance under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Thus, the court did not exclude them from the proceedings and permitted them to continue as parties.
Outcome
The Court held that the properties situated in, Arjun Nagar, and Safdarjung Development Area were the self-acquired properties of the Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.3 respectively. Additionally, the Court found that these properties do not fall under the ambit of ancestral Joint Hindu Family (HUF) properties, ultimately rejecting the plaintiff’s claim of coparcenary rights.
In terms of the property situated in Humayunpur, the court could not reach any conclusive determination as to the actual nature of this property. Owing to the lack of any concrete evidence and death of Defendant no. 1, the court ruled that Defendant no.1 did not own the suit property by way of adverse possession.
The Court also dismissed allegations of fraud concerning the Safdarjung property allotment, highlighting documentary evidence including DDA allotment and payment records favouring Defendant No.3’s exclusive ownership. Finally, the plaintiff’s suit for partition was dismissed and falls in favour of Defendants 1(f) to 1(h), and Defendant No. 3 in respect of the Arjun Nagar and Safdarjung properties, affirming the defendants’ title, possession, and ownership claims.
Significance
The judgment affirms the legal proposition that not every acquisition by a family member during the subsistence of a joint Hindu family automatically becomes a joint family asset. It reiterates the principle that partitions must be proved through cogent documentary evidence and consistent conduct.
The case reflects the evidentiary burden in proving ancestral character of properties and the legal threshold for disputing legitimacy or personal status. It also underscores how the courts interpret legal presumptions around legitimacy in the absence of documentary proof of divorce or marriage under Hindu law.
Our representation ensured that the rights of our clients were preserved despite decades-long litigation history, complex party structure, and overlapping claims of title, status, and possession.
This matter was successfully argued by Adv. Akhand Pratap Singh Chauhan (Partner), Adv. Shantanu Garg (Senior Associate), and Adv. Namanveer Singh Sod