Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Del) 559

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J.
Anil Kumar Gupta - Plaintiff
Versus
Laxmi Devi And Ors. - Defendants
CS(OS) 447 of 2021
Decided On : 29-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Plaintiff : Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw and Ms. Shambhavi Kala, Advs.
For the Defendant : Mr. Mannu Dayma, Mr. Pranav Bhatt and Mr. Anukool Chawla, Advs., Mr. Anand Varma and Ms. Apoorva Pandey, Advs.

An oral gift of immovable property is legally invalid under the Transfer of Property Act, as ownership transfer requires a mandatory registered instrument. Furthermore, the burden of proving an oral partition lies solely on the party asserting it, and mere hearsay evidence cannot substantiate such a claim.

Headnote:(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 123 - Gift of immovable property - Essential requirements - Transfer must be effected by a registered instrument signed by donor and attested by two witnesses - Gift cannot be oral. (Paras 38, 39)

(B) Partition Suit - Oral partition - Burden of proof - Party alleging oral partition must substantiate plea with cogent evidence - Mere assertion or hearsay testimony is insufficient to prove partition. (Paras 30, 33, 36)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought a preliminary decree for the partition of an immovable property, claiming a specific legal share inherited from an intestate predecessor. The defendants, representing the legal heirs of the plaintiff's deceased sibling, contended that an oral partition had taken place during the lifetime of the original owner, which allegedly allotted specific floors of the property to the plaintiff and the deceased sibling respectively. The defendants further claimed an oral gift of portions of the property to the deceased sibling. The court examined the validity of these claims in the absence of written or registered documents.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the defendants failed to produce any credible evidence to establish the oral partition. The testimonies provided were found to be based on hearsay, as the witnesses were too young or not present during the alleged event. Regarding the claim of a gift of immovable property, the court held that such a transfer is strictly governed by statute and requires a registered instrument to be valid; therefore, an oral gift is impermissible and legally ineffective. Consequently, the plea for partition was upheld based on intestate succession laws, while the claim for mandatory injunction regarding the return of title deeds failed due to lack of evidence.

Issues: The central questions were whether an oral partition of immovable property could be established without documentary evidence and whether an oral gift of immovable property holds any legal validity.

Ratio Decidendi: A property transfer by way of gift cannot be recognized unless it is executed through a registered document signed by the donor and attested by two witnesses, as mandated by the relevant Property Act. Furthermore, assertions of oral partition require substantial proof; where such claims are unsupported by public documents or direct evidence, they cannot displace established rights of legal heirs in an intestate succession.

Result: Preliminary decree of partition passed in favor of the plaintiff for 5/6th share; defendants' counter-claim failed.

Table of Content
1. basis of suit for partition and factual family history (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. defendant contentions regarding oral partition and gift (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. admissibility and documentation of evidentiary proofs (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. plaintiff rebuttal of oral partition and gift claims (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
5. inadmissibility of hearsay evidence in oral partition claims (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
6. requirement of registered instruments for immovable property gifts (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
7. inheritance of property shares in intestate succession (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47)
8. pleadings limitations and burden of proof for mandatory injunctions (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51)
9. issuance of preliminary partition decree and appointment of local commissioner (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57)

JUDGMENT :

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J.

[The matter is taken up today as 28.05.2026 was declared as holiday on account of Id-Ul-Zuha (Bakrid)]

BRIEF FACTS & PLEADINGS

1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking partition of immovable property being a three storey built up house, built on a plot area of 324.2 sq. yds. bearing plot no. 9, Block C-7, Model Town-III, Delhi – 110009 (hereinafter the ‘suit property’).

2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property was owned by the father of the plaintiff namely, late Sh. Jagdish Prasad Gupta who died intestate at Delhi on 17.12.1993. He left behind his following Class-I legal heirs:

i. Savitri Devi (wife) - died on 07.03.1997

ii. Anil Kumar Gupta (son) - plaintiff.

iii. Ashok Kumar Gupta (son) – died on 05.08.2012

iv. Sheela Mittal (daughter) - defendant no. 7

v. Usha Jain (daughter) - defendant no.8

vi. Anita Gupta (daughter) - defendant no.9

vii. Laxmi Devi (daughter) - died on 04.10.2019

3. Since Ashok Kumar Gupta had expired prior to the filing of the present suit, his widow and children have accordingly, been impleaded as defendant nos. 1 to 6. Likewise, late Smt. Laxmi Devi, daughter of late Jagdish Prasad Gupta, also pre-deceased the filing of the suit, and her legal representatives have been impleaded as defendant nos. 10 to 12. Late Smt. Savitri Devi, wife of late Jagdish Prasad Gupta, also passed away on 07.03.1997, without leaving any Will.

4. It is stated that all the six children of late Jagdish Prasad Gupta inherited 1/6th share each in the suit property. However, defendant nos. 7 to 9, being the sisters of the plaintiff, and late Smt. Laxmi Devi, another sister and predecessor-in-interest of defendant nos. 10 to 13 (mother of defendant nos. 10 to 12 and wife of defendant no. 13), together executed registered Relinquishment Deeds dated 03.12.2011 and 22.02.2018, thereby relinquishing their respective shares in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff became owner to the extent of 5/6th share in the suit property.

5. In the backdrop of above pleaded facts, the Plaintiff has prayed for following reliefs in the present suit:

“(a) Pass a preliminary decree of partition thereby defining the 5/6th Share of the plaintiff in the suit property i.e. House No. 9, Block C-7, Model Town-Ill, Delhi-110009 measuring 324.2 sq. yds as shown in the site plan attached herewith and the super structure erected thereupon.

(b) Appoint a Local Commissioner with the direction to visit the suit property and suggest the mode of partition of the suit property and other valuables, keeping in mind the site plan filed with the plaint.

(c) Pass a final decree of partition thereby partitioning the entire suit property i.e. House No. 9, Block C-7, Model Town-Ill, Delhi-110009 measuring 324.2 sq. yds as shown in the site plan attached herewith and the super structure erected thereupon by metes and bonds or as per the report of the Local Commissioner appointed by this Hon’ble Court or as may be agreed upon between the parties direct that the parties.

(d) A decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Del) 559

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIVIKAS MAHAJAN, J.Anil Kumar Gupta - PlaintiffVersusLaxmi Devi And Ors. - DefendantsCS(OS) 447 of 2021Decided On : 29-05-2026

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J.
Anil Kumar Gupta - Plaintiff
Versus
Laxmi Devi And Ors. - Defendants
CS(OS) 447 of 2021
Decided On : 29-05-2026