Vipin Sharma vs Sh. Jagroop Sharma And Ors on 11 February, 2026

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Vipin Sharma vs Sh. Jagroop Sharma And Ors on 11 February, 2026

1. 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 on behalf of the Appellant against the Order dated 10.11.2025 passed by the Ld. District Judge-03, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, whereby, Suit of the Plaintiff/Appellant for Declaration, Partition and Permanent Injunction was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, by holding that the Suit was barred by law and disclosed no cause of action.

2. Briefly stated, CS No. 726/2019 for Declaration, Partition and Permanent Injunction was filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff. The facts are that Respondent No.1, Mr. Jagroop Sharma, is the father of the Appellant, Mr. Vipin Sharma, Respondent No. 2, Ms. Sheela, is his stepmother, and Respondent No. 3, Ms. Preeti, is his stepsister. Respondent No. 1, had married Ms. Geeta Sharma, mother of the Appellant and from the said wedlock, the Appellant and his brother, Respondent No. 4, Mr. Vikas Sharma, were born on 02.02.1985 and 09.10.1979, respectively. Ms. Geeta 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 20/02/2026 at 20:37:23 Sharma left the company of Respondent No. 1 in the year 1986, leaving behind the Appellant Mr. Vipin Sharma and Respondent No. 4, and that her whereabouts are not known.

3. It was further submitted that Respondent No. 1 thereafter, remarried Respondent No. 2, and from their wedlock one daughter, Respondent No. 3, was born. It is also stated that, at the time of her marriage with Respondent No. 1, Respondent No. 2, brought a son Mr. Pankaj, who was approximately four years of age.

4. The Appellant claims that his grandfather, late Mr. Ram Chander Sharma had three brothers, namely Mr. Lakmi Chand Sharma, Mr. Hari Chander and Mr. Harkishan. Four of them had purchased a joint property, i.e., a vacant plot admeasuring 225 square yards, bearing Khasra No. 193, Mahehwari Block, Village Sikdarpur, in abadi Sh. Ram Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi, from one Mr. Gopal s/o Mr. Lakshman Das, the attorney holder of Ms. Ram Payari Devi, vide registered documents dated 09.03.1959.

5. Thereafter, an oral settlement took place between the grandfather and his brothers, whereby the property was divided into four equal shares, and an area of 56 square yards (out of the total 225 square yards) fell to the share of the grandfather. It was further stated that the grandfather constructed a house on the said portion, numbered as H. No. 1/5104, Gali No. 4, Balbir Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as "Suit Property").

6. It is averred that the complete ground floor of the Suit Property, comprising one hall, one store room, one toilet-cum-bathroom, one kitchen and one shop-cum-room, was used by Respondent No. 3 as a boutique shop. The Appellant averred to be in possession of one room situated on the left side of the first floor of the suit property. Respondent No. 4 is in use 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 20/02/2026 at 20:37:23 possession of the front portion of the same room, with a fibre-sheet shed and an open gallery in front thereof, and that Respondent No. 4 also shared a common kitchen with the Appellant and his family members.

7. The grandfather of the Appellant, died intestate in the year 1986, and that the grandmother, Ms. Chalti Devi, had predeceased him in the year 1979. The grandfather had one son, i.e., Respondent No. 1, and three daughters, namely Ms. Kiranwati, Ms. Surajwati and Ms. Tarawati, and that the three sisters relinquished their shares in the suit property in favour of Respondent No. 1, vide Relinquishment Deed dated 03.02.2010. Respondent No. 1 thus, became the absolute owner of the suit property.

8. The Appellant alleges that he was a co-owner of the Suit Property and had been residing therein since birth, and continued to live there after his marriage on 28.02.2017. It was also stated that his daughter was born in the same house. Further, the Respondents repeatedly threatened to sell the Suit Property and stated that they would not pay anything to the Appellant.

9. Hence, the Appellant sought Declaration, Partition and Permanent Injunction against the Respondents 1, 2 and 3.

10. An Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was filed by the Defendant No. 1/Respondent No. 1 seeking rejection of the Suit, which was allowed and the Suit of the Plaintiff/Appellant was dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court holding, vide the Impugned Order dated 10.11.2025, inter alia, that the Suit was barred under Section 8 Hindu Succession Act, and did not disclose any cause of action.

11. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 10.11.2025, the present Appeal has been preferred on the grounds that the Plaint disclosed a clear, detailed and triable cause of action, founded upon ancestral property right and the This is a digitally signed order.

12. The Ld. Trial Court erred in observing that the Suit was barred under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 (Hereinafter referred to as "the 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 Suit Property, which requires evidence for determination.

13. The Ld. 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.

14. The Appellant relied 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.

15. It is submitted that even if the Appellant, being 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, constitute a separate and severable cause of action.

16. The Ld. Trial Court wrongly treated the existence/non-existence of Hindu Undivided Family (hereinafter referred to as "HUF"), as a pure question of law, when it is mixed question of facts and law. As per 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 20/02/2026 at 20:37:23 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 the son retains its ancestral character whereby the son of that son, whether natural or adopted, takes an interest in the same and becomes entitled thereto, by survivorship. The Relinquishment Deed executed by one coparcener, does not alter the ancestral or coparcener character of the property.

17. The Appellant also placed reliance on Shyam Narayan Prasad vs. Krishna Prasad, (2018) 7 SCC 646.

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

19. Essentially, the dispute concerns a parcel of land measuring 225 square yards situated in Village Sikdarpur, Shahdara, Delhi. The material on record shows that the said plot was purchased jointly by late Mr. Ram Chander Sharma, the grandfather of the Appellant, along with his three brothers. The purchase was made in their individual capacity and the property was purchased as joint owners, in the names of all four brothers.

20. From the averments made in the Plaint itself, it is evident that there was not a whisper of the existence of a Joint Hindu Family, at the time of acquisition of the property. There is no assertion that the four brothers formed a joint family nor is there any averment of any Karta managing joint family affairs or that they were coparceners. The transaction i.e. joint This is a digitally signed order.

21. The distinction between co-ownership and coparcenary cannot be overlooked. Mere joint acquisition of property by siblings does not, by itself, clothe the property with the character of a joint family property. In the absence of specific pleadings that the property formed part of an HUF or was treated as such, there cannot be any presumption of the existence of such a legal relationship.

22. The Plaint further states that subsequently, the four brothers entered into an oral settlement and partitioned the land amongst themselves. In that arrangement, late Mr. Ram Chander Sharma received 56 square yards, making him the exclusive owner of the plot of land which got demarcated and came to his share. He then raised the construction, as stated in the Plaint.

23. At the time of his demise in the year 1986, he was survived by Respondent No. 1 and three daughters. The daughters relinquished their respective shares in favour of Respondent No. 1 vide Relinquishment Deed dated 03.02.2010. Consequently, Respondent No. 1 thus, became the sole owner of the Suit Property.

24. Since much of the argument advanced on behalf of the Appellant rests upon the alleged ancestral character of the Suit Property, it becomes necessary to briefly revisit the legal concepts of a Joint Hindu Family and coparcenary. Under classical Hindu law, a Joint Hindu Family consists of persons lineally descended from a common ancestor and includes their wives and unmarried daughters. Such a family may exist even without joint property; however, the existence of joint family property presupposes both family unity and common ownership.

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 20/02/2026 at 20:37:23

25. Coparcenary, in contrast, is a narrower body within the Joint Hindu Family. Prior to the 2005 amendment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, coparcenary comprised male members up to three degrees from the propositus who acquired an interest in property by birth. The essential feature of coparcenary property was unity of ownership and community of interest, such that each coparcener had an undivided interest in the whole, subject to partition.

26. In Controller of Estate Duty, Madras vs. Alladi Kuppuswamy,(1977) 3 SCC 385 it was explained that until partition, no coparcener can predicate a definite share in the property, as each holds it jointly with the others. This principle, however, applies only where a coparcenary is shown to exist.

27. 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.

28. Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is reproduced infra:

"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."

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 20/02/2026 at 20:37:23

29. Section 8 of the Act, lays down the scheme of intestate succession in the case of a male Hindu. Post-1956, devolution is governed by statutory succession and not by the doctrine of survivorship, save where a valid coparcenary subsists.

30. In Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and Ors. vs. Chander Sen and Ors., 1986 3 SCC 567, the Supreme Court clarified that property inherited by a son after 1956 from his father does not automatically assume the character of an HUF property. This view was reaffirmed in Yudhishter vs. Ashok Kumar, (1987) 1 SCC 204, wherein it was held that inheritance under Section 8 of the Act results in the property becoming the individual property of the heir, notwithstanding its ancestral origin.

31. The legal position that emerges is clear: unless an HUF was in existence prior to 1956 and continued thereafter, or unless a person voluntarily blended his self-acquired property into a „common hotchpotch‟ with clear and specific intention, inheritance after 1956 does not create coparcenary rights by birth.

32. In the present case, there is no evidence of an HUF existing at any point of time. There is no averment of blending of property into a common hotchpotch. The property devolved upon Respondent No. 1 in 1986, well after the coming into force of the Act, and thus by operation of Section 8 of the Act, became his exclusive property, after the execution of the Relinquishment Deed dated 03.02.2010, by the three sisters in his favour.

33. The inevitable consequence is that Respondent No. 1 acquired the suit property as his absolute and individual property. Once such absolute ownership vested in him, he was legally entitled to deal with the property in any manner permissible under law.

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 20/02/2026 at 20:37:23

34. Once the property is held to be the exclusive property of Respondent No.1, the challenge raised by the Appellant, to subsequent transfers cannot be sustained. A son cannot claim a right by birth in a property, which, in the eyes of law, is the self-acquired property of his father.

35. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance on Shyam Narayan Prasad vs. Krishna Prasad and Ors., (2018) 7 SCC 646, but said decision proceeded on the footing that the property in question was established to be coparcenary property. In the present case, no such foundational fact, has been proved and the facts are distinguishable.

36. In the end, it is pertinent to mention that a similar 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, which was decided by this Court vide Order dated 30.01.2026 in RFA 108/2026, wherein it was held as under:

"The Ld. 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 Ld. District Judge. There is no infirmity in the Order and the present Appeal is hereby, dismissed."

37. Therefore, the Ld. Trial Court has correctly observed that a mere assertion that a property is ancestral, unsupported by pleadings demonstrating the existence of a coparcenary or legally recognizable joint family status, is insufficient to grant Declaratory relief. Courts are bound to decide on the basis of legal character, not sentiment or assumption.

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 20/02/2026 at 20:37:23

38. For the reasons stated above, the Impugned Judgment and Decree dated 10.11.2025 of the Ld. District Judge-03, Delhi in CS No. 726/2019 does not suffer from any legal infirmity and merits no interference.

39. The Appeal is accordingly, dismissed.

40. Pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J FEBRUARY 11, 2026/R 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 20/02/2026 at 20:37:23

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders