Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR
Rajesh Rajpal – Appellant
Versus
Rakesh Rajpal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. Through the present Appeal filed under Section 10 of the DELHI HIGH COURT ACT , 1966, the Appellant assails the correctness of paragraph nos.15 and 36 of an interlocutory order dated 20.05.2025[Hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’] passed by the learned Single Judge, in CS(OS) 324/2025 captioned Rajesh Rajpal vs. Rakesh Rajpal & Ors., [Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Civil Suit’]. Vide the Impugned Order, the learned Single Judge deleted the property mentioned at S.No.7 of paragraph no.8 of the Plaint from the scope of the Civil Suit. Additionally, it was declared that the properties enlisted in paragraph nos.3 and 5 of the Plaint shall not be governed by rigours of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, [Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. The relevant paragraphs of the plaint are reproduced below:
―3. That in addition to the aforesaid properties/share therein, Late Mr. K.C. Rajpal also owned properties, detailed below:-
(i) bearing No.107, Sherawali Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi and
(ii)bearing No. BG-5, Block-45A, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110063 The properties at S.No. (i) & (ii), were purchased in the name of Defendant No.2 and/o
Exclusion of properties in a partition suit requires demonstration of entitlements and cannot disregard valid transfers made via documented relinquishments; any challenge to such must follow proper p....
The court ruled that claims of ownership must be substantiated by appropriate legal documentation, reaffirming statutory rights under the Indian Succession Act and its applications to inheritance and....
A full trial is necessary to determine the nature of property in partition disputes; striking out pleadings requires strict adherence to CPC provisions ensuring fairness.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the power to allow amendments to the plaint to prevent the inexecutability of a partition decree.
A plaint cannot be rejected in part; prior contractual rights supersede subsequent title claims, reinforcing the binding nature of earlier agreements in property disputes.
Transfer of property under the guise of partition is invalid if conducted in violation of a court's interim order, as it does not legally confer rights upon transferees.
Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act ensures that joint family property becomes absolute for female heirs, affecting rights in partition cases.
A plaint must disclose a clear cause of action; clever drafting that creates an illusion of a cause of action is insufficient for maintaining a suit.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
