Vipin Sharma vs Jagroop Sharma And Ors on 30 January, 2026

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Vipin Sharma vs Jagroop Sharma And Ors on 30 January, 2026

1. Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as „CPC‟) has been filed against the Order dated 10.11.2025 of learned District Judge in CS No. 901/2023 whereby the Suit of the Plaintiff for cancellation of Sale Deed dated 06.06.2022 executed by Defendant No. 2 in favour of Defendant No. 3 and other documents like Agreement to Sell dated 09.04.1986 executed in favour of Defendant No. 1 and Agreement to Sell dated 29.05.2000 in the favour of Defendant No. 2, be declared null and void and also for Permanent Injunction to restrain the Defendants from creating the third party rights in the Suit Property, has been rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Defendant No. 1 is the father, Defendant No. 2 is the step mother and Defendant No. 3 is the step brother of the Plaintiff. The Defendant No. 1 had got married to Smt. Geeta Sharma, mother of the Plaintiff/Appellant and from their wedlock, the Plaintiff and This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/02/2026 at 20:38:15 his brother Vikas Sharma, were born on 02.02.1985 and 09.10.1979, respectively. Unfortunately, Smt. Geeta Sharma, mother of the Plaintiff left the company of Defendant No. 1 in the year 1986, leaving the Plaintiff and his brother alone. Her whereabouts are not known.

3. The Defendant No. 1 thereafter, got re-married to Defendant No. 2 Smt. Sheela and from their wedlock, one daughter Preeti was born. Defendant No. 3 was brought by Defendant No. 2 at the time of her marriage with Defendant No. 1.

4. It is claimed that late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma, grandfather of the Appellant, has purchased a joint property i.e. a vacant plot admeasuring 225 sq. yds. bearing Khasra No.193, Mahehwari Block, Village Sikdarpur in abadi Sh. Ram Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi alongwith his three brothers, namely, Lakmi Chand Sharma, Hari Chander and Harkishan, from one Sh. Gopal, who was the Attorney Holder of Smt. Ram Payari Devi vide documents dated 09.03.1959, which wereduly registered. Thereafter, an oral settlement took place between the grandfather and his brothers and the property got divided into four equal shares and an area of 56 sq. yds. out of total plot of 225 sq. yds. came in the share of the grandfather. Accordingly, he constructed the house on this piece of land, which is now recognized as H.No. 1/5104,Gali No. 4, Balbir Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi.

5. The complete Ground Floor consisting of one hall, one store room, one toilet cum bathroom, one kitchen and one shop cum room, was used by Defendant No. 3 as Boutique Shop. The Plaintiff/Appellant' brother Vikas Sharma, is in usage and possession of the front portion of the room of the Plaintiff with fibre sheets shed including open gallerysituated in front. The brother Vikas Sharma was having a common kitchen with the Plaintiff and This is a digitally signed order.

6. The grandfather of the Plaintiff died intestate,in the year 1986. The grandmother of the Plaintiff Smt. Chalti Devi had already died in the year 1979, during the lifetime of the grandfather. The grandfather had one son i.e., Defendant No. 1 and three daughters, namely, Kiranwati, Surajwati and Tarawati. The three sisters relinquished their one 1/4thshare each in the Suit Property, in favor of Defendant No. 1 vide Relinquishment Deed dated 03.02.2000. The Defendant No. 1, therefore, got the 3/4th shares of the three sisters and became the absolute owner of the Suit Property.

7. The Plaintiff asserted that he is the co-owner of the Suit Property. He has been residing there since birth and even after his marriage on 28.02.2017. His daughter was born in the same house.

8. It is further asserted that Defendant No. 2 is a quarrelsome lady, who has a habit of raising quarrels with the Plaintiff and his wife, Prem Lata. During the fights, Defendant No. 1, Defendant No. 3 and Archana played an active role and supported the Defendant No. 2. There have been various instances of fights, which have been narrated in the plaint. The Plaintiff alongwith his brother Vikas Sharma, filed the Suit No.726/2019 for Declaration, Partition and Permanent Injunction against the Defendants, which is pending trial before the learned ADJ.

9. During the pendency of the said Suit, Defendants several times threatened to sell the Suit Property and that would not give a single penny to the Plaintiff.

10. The Plaintiff came to know that Defendant No. 1 and 2 have transferred the Suit Property in the name of Defendant No. 3 fraudulently, vide Sale Deed dated 06.06.2022, on the basis of forged and fabricated This is a digitally signed order.

11. The Relinquishment Deed dated 03.02.2000 duly notarized, has been filed by Defendant No. 1 in the earlier Suit alongwith his Written Statement. The Plaintiff has come to know on 17.07.2022, about the collusion between the Defendants, who locked the room of the Plaintiff in the Suit Property and committed theft of all his household articles and money. A Complaint dated 17.07.2022 has already been lodged with the Police. The Plaintiff has thus, filed the Suit seeking a Declaration that the Sale Deed dated 06.06.2022 is null and void and to permanently restrain the Defendants from creating third party rights in the Suit Property.

12. An Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC had been filed, by the Defendant/Respondent for rejection of the Suit.

13. The learned District Judge, vide impugned Order dated 10.11.2025, rejected the Suit observing that the entire cause of action is illusionary and is barred by law.

14. Aggrieved by the said Order, the present Appeal has been preferred. The grounds of challenge are that the Plaint disclosed a clear, detailed and triable cause of action founded upon ancestral property right and the disputed questions of fact and law, could not have been determined without a complete trial.

15. The learned Trial Court erred in observing that the Suit was barred under Section 8 Hindu Succession Act, without appreciating that there was specific pleading of ancestral acquisition of the property, joint possession and subsisting family arrangements, which are mixed questions of fact and law. The rights of the Appellant flowed from the ancestral character of the This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/02/2026 at 20:38:15 Suit Property, which requires evidence for determination. The learned Trial Court has relied upon the defence taken in the Written Statement and the documents produced by the Respondent and has conducted a premature adjudication on disputed questions of facts and law.

16. Reliance is placed on Saleem Bhai vs. State of Maharashtra,(2003) 1 SCC 557 and Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. vs. Vessel M.V. Fortune Express, (2006) 3 SCC 100.

17. The son of Respondent No. 1, cannot assert any civil right during the lifetime of his father. The Suit was not merely founded on the claim of coparcenary, but also on settled possession, family arrangements and protection against illegal dispossession. Even if the Appellant's claim to partition is ultimately found to be not sustainable, the Plaint could not have been rejected in toto as the prayer for Injunction and protection of possession, constitutes a separate and severable cause of action.

18. The learned Trial Court wrongly treated the existence/non-existence of Hindu Undivided Family, as a pure question of law when it is mixed question of facts and law. As per the Mitakshara Law, a property inherited by a male Hindu from his father, father's father, or father's father's father, is ancestral property and the essential feature of such property is that the son, grandson and great grandsons of the person, inherits an interest and a right in the said property. The coparcener also has a right of partition of ancestral property. Even after partition, the property in the hands of son retains its ancestral character whereby son of that son, whether natural or adopted, takes an interest in the same and becomes entitled thereto, by survivorship. Reference is made to Shyam Narayan Prasad vs. Krishna Prasad, (2018) 7 SCC 646.

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/02/2026 at 20:38:15

19. The Relinquishment Deed executed by one coparcener, does not alter the ancestral or coparcener character of the property.

20. A prayer is, therefore, made that the impugned Order be set aside. Submissions heard and record perused.

21. A Suit was filed by Plaintiff/Appellant for cancellation of Sale Deed dated 06.06.2022 executed by Respondent No.1 and 2 in favour of Respondent No.3, and for Permanent Injunction for restraining the Defendants/Respondents from creating third party rights in the Suit Property.

22. Brief facts are that late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma, grandfather of the Appellant along with his three brothers, had purchased a property jointly, i.e. a vacant plot admeasuring 225 sq. yds., Village Sikdarpur, Shahdara, Delhi. There were thus, four owners of the property in question.

23. From the averments made in the Plaint itself, it is evident that it is a simplicitor case where the properties were purchased jointly by the grandfather alongwith his three brothers and, therefore, they became the joint owners. There is not a single averment in the entire pleading, that there was a joint family existing between the grandfather and his three brothers, which could have been best witnessed by there being the karta of the joint family.

24. Pertinently, aside from an assertion that grandfather alongwith his three brothers, had purchased a plot of land jointly, there is nothing to show that a joint family existed or there was a coparcenary formed inter se the brothers. It is simplicitor case where the property is purchased by four persons, making them the joint owners. There is not a single averment from where it can be inferred that it was a joint family property or that there ever This is a digitally signed order.

25. It further emerges from the averments made in the Plaint, that the four brothers entered into an oral settlement whereby the grandfather got 56 sq. yds. of land in his share, on which he raised the construction. He, thereafter, died in the year 1986. He was survived by Defendant No. 1-Jagroop Sharma and three sisters. The three sisters relinquished their shares in favour of Defendant No. 1, whereby he became the exclusive owner of the entire Suit Property.

26. To understand the extent of the import of the Hindu Succession Act, it is first significant to consider the concept of coparcenary andJoint Hindu Family. A Joint Hindu Family consists of all persons who lineally descend from the common ancestor and includes their wives and unmarried daughters. It is one in worship and holds joint assets. After separation of assets, the family ceasesto be joint. Mere severance in food and worship is not treated as a separation, as observed in Sri Raghunadha vs. Sri Brozo Kishore, 1876 (1) Madras 69.

27. Bhashyam Ayyangar J. in SundaranamMaistri vs. Harasimbhulu Maistri & Another (1902) ILR 25 Madras explained the legal position. It was explained that the Mitakshara doctrine of joint family property, is founded upon the existence of an undivided family as a corporate body and the possession of the property by such corporate body. The first pre- requisite therefore, is the family unity; and the second requisite is the possession of property by it. The conception of a Hindu family is a common male ancestor with his lineal descendants in the male line and so long as that family is undivided, it forms a corporate body, which is purely a creature of law and cannot be created by act of parties save in so far by adoption, a This is a digitally signed order.

28. Hindu coparcenary is a narrower concept and consists of propositus and three lineal descendants. Before Amendment in Hindu Succession Act,1956 in 2005, it included only those persons like sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons, who were the holders of joint property. It is only on demise of the son i.e. first generation that the next lineal descendant would get included in the coparcenary. Further, all the three male lineal descendants acquired interest in the property by birth. The right in the property of the coparcenary was thus, protected upto the third generation and extended on the death of any such male lineal descendants to the next generation. As per the old Law, a woman could not be a coparcener, but she could still be a joint family member.

29. In Controller of Estate Duty, Madras vs. Alladi Kuppuswamy,(1977) 3 SCC 385 it was explained that until partition, each member has got ownership extending over the entire property, conjointly with the rest and so long as no partition takes place, it is difficult for any coparcener topredicate the share which he might receive. The result of such co-ownership is that the possession and enjoyment of the property is common.

30. Therefore, the sons and daughters of a coparcener, become coparceners by virtue of birth. Devolution of coparcenary property is the later stage of and a consequence of death of a coparcener. The first stage of a coparcenary is obviously its creation, while the second stage is inheritance, which can be availed of by any coparcener.

31. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the HSA) was passed and came into force on 17.06.1956. The preamble of the HSA emphasized that it was an Act to amend and codify the law relating to This is a digitally signed order.

32. The Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and Ors. v. Chander Sen and Ors., 1986 3 SCC 567, had observed that after the passing of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the traditional view that on inheritance of an immovable property from parental ancestors upto three degrees automatically becomes an HUF, no longer remains the legal proposition in view of Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

33. In the case of Yudhishter vs. Ashok Kumar, (1987) 1 SCC 204 the Supreme Court reiterated the legal position that after coming into force of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, inheritance of ancestral property after 1956, does not result in creation of an HUF property.

34. The above judgments were referred in the case of Sunny (Minor) vs. Sh. Raj Singh, CS(OS) No.431/2006 decided on 17.11.2015 by this Court which arrived at the following conclusions:

"(i) If a person dies after passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and there is no HUF existing at the time of the death of such a person, inheritance of an immovable property of such a person by his successors-in-interest is no doubt inheritance of an „ancestral‟ property but the inheritance is as a self-acquired property in the hands of the successor and not as an HUF property although the successor(s) indeed inherits „ancestral‟ property i.e. a property belonging to his paternal ancestor.

(ii) The only way in which a Hindu Undivided Family/joint Hindu family can come into existence after 1956 (and when a joint Hindu family did not exist prior to 1956) is if an This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/02/2026 at 20:38:15 individual's property is thrown into a common hotchpotch. Also, once a property is thrown into a common hotchpotch, it is necessary that the exact details of the specific date/month/year etc. of creation of an HUF for the first time by throwing a property into a common hotchpotch have to be clearly pleaded and mentioned and which requirement is a legal requirement because of Order VI Rule 4 CPC which provides that all necessary factual details of the cause of action must be clearly stated. Thus, if an HUF property exists because of its such creation by throwing of self-acquired property by a person in the common hotchpotch, consequently there is entitlement in coparceners etc. to a share in such HUF property.

(iii) An HUF can also exist if paternal ancestral properties are inherited prior to 1956, and such status of parties qua the properties has continued after 1956 with respect to properties inherited prior to 1956 from paternal ancestors. Once that status and position continues even after 1956; of the HUF and of its properties existing; a coparcener etc. will have a right to seek partition of the properties.

(iv)Even before 1956, an HUF can come into existence even without inheritance of ancestral property from paternal ancestors, as HUF could have been created prior to 1956 by throwing of individual property into a common hotchpotch. If such an HUF continues even after 1956, then in such a case a coparcener etc. of an HUF was entitled to partition of the This is a digitally signed order.

35. Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act,1956 reads as under:

"8. General rules of succession in the case of males--The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter--

(a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class I of the Schedule;

(b) secondly, if there is no heir of class I, then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class II of the Schedule;

(c) thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the two classes, then upon the agnates of the deceased; and

(d) lastly, if there is no agnate, then upon the cognates of the deceased."

36. Any devolution after 1956, is in accordance with laws of inheritance as defined in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and not by way of survivorship.

37. Therefore, the claim of the Appellant-Vipin Sharma that the property in the hands of Defendant No. 1, his father is ancestral, is not in consonance with law and Hindu Succession Act. Defendant No. 1 became the exclusive owner of the Suit Property. So being the case, he had an absolute right to deal with the property as his sole and exclusive property.

38. The wife of Defendant No. 1, from whom the Appellant and his brother Vikas Sharma, were born, deserted Defendant No. 1 and went away with her whereabouts not known. Defendant No. 1 thereafter, married Defendant No. 2, who is the step mother of two of the Appellants. The father has transferred the property in favour of the Defendant No. 2 through the This is a digitally signed order.

39. Once it is established that the property in the hands of Defendant No.1 was not ancestral but was his individual property, he had an absolute right of alienation and therefore, the Appellant cannot seek avoidance of the Sale Deeds on the ground that the Suit Property is ancestral or that they have a share in the Suit Property.

40. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance on Shyam Narayan Prasad v. Krishna Prasad and Ors., (2018) 7 SCC 646. However, the same is distinguishable as it has observed that the property was a joint Hindu family/HUF/Coparcenary property and, therefore, the inheritance of such property is by way of survivorship.

41. In the present case, as discussed above, it has emerged that there is no HUF or joint family ever existed nor had the property in question, was acquired as an ancestral property.

42. The learned Trial Court has rightly observed that mere assertion of ancestral status without a legally cognizable title, is insufficient to seek Declaration in respect of Sale Deeds. The Suit of the Appellant has been rightly rejected by the learned District Judge. There is no infirmity in the Order and the present Appeal is hereby, dismissed.

43. Pending Application also stands disposed of.

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J JANUARY 30, 2026 N This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/02/2026 at 20:38:15

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders