The burden of proving a property is self-acquired shifts to the respondent once a joint family nucleus is established. However, a temporary injunction is not granted when the claimant's interest is limited to monetary compensation and the relief sought would unnecessarily disrupt ongoing family property management.

Reserved on: 09.12.2025

Pronounced on: 17.12.2025

JUDGMENT

I.A. 27335/2025 (FOR INJUNCTION UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2)

The suit is for partitioning of purported coparcenary properties belonging to Ganesh Seth and Son HUF (the HUF).

2. The plaintiff is the daughter of defendant no. 1. Defendant no. 2 is her brother and defendant no. 1’s son.

3. The case set up in the plaint is as follows:

3.1. Mrs. Shobha Seth, the mother of the plaintiff and defendant no. 2, passed away on 12.01.2024. Defendant no. 1 is the karta of the HUF, and the other parties are members thereof. Late Mrs. Shobha Seth too, was a member of the HUF during her lifetime.

3.2. Within the HUF, the plaintiff and the defendants form a coparcenary, which is possessed of various properties. Upon the demise of Mrs. Shobha Seth, the defendants started exerting pressure on the plaintiff and her family to relinquish their rights over the coparcenary/HUF property in favour of the defendants and have even got drafted a release deed, a family settlement agreement, affidavits, ‘no objection’ certificates, and other documents in this regard. The said documents included certain properties which stand in the individual names of the defendants, arousing suspicion in the plaintiff that they are also coparcenary/HUF properties.

3.3. The defendants also informed the plaintiff of Will dated 19.11.2012, purportedly executed by late Mrs. Shobha Seth under which all her movable and immovable properties, including her purported share in the coparcenary/HUF properties, were bequeathed to the defendants, to the exclusion of the plaintiff.

3.4. The land admeasuring 0.974 acres in the property bearing no. 85-A, Panchkuian Road, New Delhi-110001, (the Panchkuian property) formed the nucleus of the coparcenary. The Panchkuian property, originally, belonged to a larger coparcenary from which defendant no. 1 separated, along with defendant no. 2, by way of a compromise decree dated 02.04.1984 in Civil Suit No. 732 of 1983. Defendant no. 1 had undertaken to sell seventy-five per cent of the Panchkuian property to one Mr. Karam Chand Thapar vide Agreement to Sell dated 27.07.1987, and the same was sold as per the compromise decree dated 17.07.1992 in Suit No. 1373/1991 before this Court. Portions of the Panchkuian property remaining with the coparcenary are being let out to various tenants for commercial purposes, generating income.

3.5. The sale consideration received in respect of the Panchkuian property was used to purchase the residential house bearing no. M-68, First Floor, Greater Kailash Part-1, New Delhi-110048 (the GK property) in the name of defendant no. 1 vide Sale Deeds dated 10.06.1992 and 16.07.1992.

3.6. The coparcenary also had agricultural property admeasuring 20 kanal and 23 marla in Wazirpur, Gurgaon (the Wazirpur land). In the year 2023, Defendant no. 1, vide Sale Deed dated 30.11.2023, and purportedly, acting as the karta, had sold a portion of the Wazirpur land to a third-party for a consideration of Rs. 16,00,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Crore only).

3.7. A partnership in the name and style of Salil Enterprises, wherein the defendants and Mrs. Shobha Seth were partners, and which carried on business from the Panchkuian property, was also set up using the funds derived from the nucleus of the coparcenary.

3.8. The coparcenary was possessed of various other movable and immovable properties. Schedule-I to the plaint, containing a list of the purported coparcenary properties, is extracted below, for reference:

“SCHEDULE-I

A. IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES OF