Delhi High Court on Partition of Ancestral Property and Maintainability of Suit under CPC.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the Single Judge’s decision in a property partition dispute, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish co-ownership or a legal right to claim partition. The Court reiterated that in absence of proper title documents or proof of ancestral nature of property, a claim for partition cannot be sustained. The appeal was held to be devoid of merit and dismissed accordingly.

1. The appellant, Ajay Narain, filed a partition suit claiming ownership rights in certain immovable property situated in Delhi, asserting it to be ancestral property jointly owned by the parties.
2. The Single Judge had dismissed the suit on the ground that the property was self-acquired by the father and not ancestral in character, and therefore, no right of partition accrued to the appellant.
3. Aggrieved by this, the appellant preferred the present appeal before the Division Bench under Section 96 CPC read with Order XLI CPC, contending that the trial court had erred in appreciating the nature of the property and the documentary evidence produced.
4. The respondents opposed the appeal, asserting that the appellant was merely residing in the property by permission and had no legal ownership rights.

1. The Court reiterated that ancestral property under Hindu law must have descended undivided for four generations of male lineage and cannot include self-acquired property of the father unless it is voluntarily converted into joint family property.
2. The appellant had failed to show any evidence of ancestral title or coparcenary status.
3. The sale deed and mutation records clearly indicated that the property was purchased by the father in his individual capacity.
4. The Court emphasized that mere residence or permissive occupation does not confer ownership or partition rights.
5. There was no procedural irregularity or misreading of evidence by the Single Judge that would justify interference under Section 96 CPC.
6. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

1. Section 96 & Order XLI, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Appeal from original decree.
2. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (as amended) – Rules relating to coparcenary and inheritance.
3. Evidence Act, 1872 – Onus of proof regarding ownership and title.

Citation: 2025:DEL:87214

Case: Ajay Narain v. Aarti Singh & Ors.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Justice Manmohan & Justice Mini Pushkarna

Date of Decision: 28 October 2025

RFA (OS) No.: 13 of 2025