Anil Kumar Gupta v. Laxmi Devi & Ors., 2026

The plaintiff, Anil Kumar Gupta, instituted a suit seeking partition of a three-storey residential property situated at Model Town-III, Delhi.

The property had originally belonged to the plaintiff's father, Jagdish Prasad Gupta, who had acquired it through a registered sale deed.

Jagdish Prasad Gupta died intestate on 17 December 1993.

At the time of his death, he was survived by his wife and six children, comprising two sons and four daughters.

The plaintiff's mother, Savitri Devi, subsequently died on 7 March 1997.

After the death of the parents, the surviving children became entitled to shares in the property in accordance with the applicable succession law.

One of the plaintiff's brothers, Ashok Kumar Gupta, subsequently died on 5 August 2012.

The plaintiff's four sisters executed relinquishment deeds in his favour.

On the basis of those relinquishment deeds and the succession of the property, the plaintiff claimed 5/6th share in the property.

The legal representatives of the deceased brother Ashok Kumar Gupta resisted the partition claim.

They contended that the father had already effected an oral partition during his lifetime.

According to their case, the plaintiff had received the ground and mezzanine floors, while Ashok Kumar Gupta had received the first and second floors.

The defendants also asserted that the father had orally gifted the first and second floors to Ashok Kumar Gupta.

The plaintiff denied both the alleged oral partition and the alleged oral gift.

The defendants relied principally upon oral testimony to establish the alleged partition.

The Court noted that only two witnesses, DW-1 and DW-2, entered the witness box on behalf of the defendants to establish the alleged oral partition.

Significantly, DW-1's date of birth was 29 May 1991, meaning that he was only about six months old if the alleged partition had occurred around December 1991.

DW-1 admitted during cross-examination that the alleged partition had not taken place in his presence and that his information came from his father.

The defendants also failed to produce documentary evidence establishing the alleged oral partition.

The defendants' own pleadings concerning the relinquishment deeds were found to be inconsistent with their claim that the property had already been completely divided between the plaintiff and Ashok Kumar Gupta.

The Court separately examined the alleged oral gift of the first and second floors.

No registered gift deed executed by Jagdish Prasad Gupta in favour of Ashok Kumar Gupta was produced.

The defendants therefore sought to rely upon an alleged oral gift of immovable property.

The Court examined Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act and the Supreme Court's decision in Gomtibai v. Mattulal.

The Court concluded that the alleged oral gift could not transfer title to the immovable property.

The Court consequently rejected both the alleged oral partition and oral gift.

The plaintiff was therefore held entitled to 5/6th share, while the legal representatives of Ashok Kumar Gupta collectively retained the remaining 1/6th share.

The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff's partition claim substantially.

The Court first considered the defendants' plea of oral partition.

The defendants asserted that the father had divided the property approximately 30 years before the filing of their written statements.

However, the Court found that the principal witnesses produced by the defendants did not have personal knowledge of the alleged partition.

DW-1 was only approximately six months old at the time when the alleged partition was said to have occurred.

DW-1 expressly admitted that the partition had not taken place in his presence and that his knowledge came from his father.

The second witness also failed to provide reliable independent evidence establishing the alleged partition.

The Court therefore found that the oral testimony did not satisfactorily prove the alleged family partition.

The Court further noted that the defendants had produced no documentary evidence establishing that the property had been partitioned during the lifetime of Jagdish Prasad Gupta.

The existence and execution of the relinquishment deeds by the plaintiff's sisters also undermined the defendants' case.

The defendants themselves acknowledged the sisters' interests in the property in connection with the relinquishment deeds.

The Court found that this position was inconsistent with the assertion that the property had already been divided exclusively between the plaintiff and Ashok Kumar Gupta.

The Court then considered the alleged oral gift of the first and second floors.

Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act requires a gift of immovable property to be effected through a registered instrument, signed by or on behalf of the donor and attested by at least two witnesses.

The Court relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Gomtibai v. Mattulal, which held that a gift of immovable property must be made through a registered instrument.

The Court also referred to the Delhi High Court's earlier decision in R.N. Dawar v. Ganga Ram Saran Dhama, which similarly recognized that an oral gift of immovable property cannot transfer title.

Since no registered gift deed executed by Jagdish Prasad Gupta in favour of Ashok Kumar Gupta was produced, the alleged oral gift could not confer ownership.

The Court accordingly rejected the defendants' plea of an oral gift.

Having rejected both the alleged oral partition and oral gift, the Court proceeded to determine the parties' shares.

The Court found that Jagdish Prasad Gupta had died intestate and that his property devolved upon his legal heirs in accordance with the applicable succession law.

Following the death of the mother and the subsequent death of Ashok Kumar Gupta, and taking into account the relinquishment deeds executed by the sisters, the plaintiff became entitled to 5/6th share.

The legal representatives of Ashok Kumar Gupta collectively retained 1/6th share.

The Court therefore passed a preliminary decree of partition declaring the respective shares.

A Local Commissioner was directed to examine the property and suggest whether it could be partitioned by metes and bounds.

The Court also granted the plaintiff permanent injunctive relief in respect of the property.

The Court did not grant the plaintiff's claim for mandatory injunction concerning the title documents because the plaintiff failed to establish that the documents had actually been handed over to his deceased brother.

The relinquishment deeds executed by the plaintiff's sisters were valid and effective for determining the plaintiff's enhanced share.

The plaintiff was entitled to a 5/6th share in the suit property.

The legal representatives of Ashok Kumar Gupta collectively held the remaining 1/6th share.

A preliminary decree of partition was therefore passed.

A Local Commissioner was directed to examine the feasibility and mode of partition by metes and bounds.