Disposed

Abha Gupta v. Ravindra Kumar Gupta & Ors.

Delhi HC11 Mar 2026FAO(OS)/232/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Partition suit among siblings over Bhajanpura and Rohini properties. Appeals challenged the Single Judge's order; parties agreed to frame additional issues on cancellation of the Relinquishment Deed, limitation, and entitlement to partition, possession and mesne profits. Appeals disposed of permitting further evidence before the learned Single Judge.

What did the court decide?

Additional issues framed by consent; parties allowed to lead further evidence; observations in impugned order not to bind trial; appeals disposed.

Abha Gupta Vs Ravindra Kumar Gupta & Ors. — Partition | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~5 to 7

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

5 FAO(OS) 229/2019

¶4

SUDHIR KUMAR GUPTA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Shiv Charan Garg, Mr. Imran Khan, Ms. Jahanvi Garg and Ms. Chanchal Garg, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

RAVINDRA KUMAR GUPTA & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Varun Nischal and Ms. Saira Tagra, Advocates for R-1 along with R-1. Mr. Viney Sharma, Adv. for R- 8.

¶7

6+ FAO(OS) 232/2019

¶8

ABHA GUPTA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Viney Sharma, Adv.

¶9

versus

¶10

RAVINDRA KUMAR GUPTA & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Varun Nischal and Ms. Saira Tagra, Advocates for R-1 along with R-1. Mr. Shiv Charan Garg, Mr. Imran Khan, Ms. Jahanvi Garg and Ms. Chanchal Garg, Advs. for R-2.

¶11

7+ FAO(OS) 259/2019, CM APPL. 55130/2019

¶12

RAVINDER KUMAR GUPTA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Varun Nischal and Ms. Saira Tagra, Advocates along with appellant.

¶13

versus

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 18/03/2026 at 15:43:07

¶16

ABHA GUPTA & ORS .....Respondents

¶17

Through: Mr. Viney Sharma, Adv. for R- 1.

¶18

Mr. Shiv Charan Garg, Mr. Imran Khan, Ms. Jahanvi Garg and Ms. Chanchal Garg, Advs. for R-2.

¶19

CORAM:

¶20

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR

¶21

O R D E R % 11.03.2026

¶22

All the above three appeals arise out of the same Order dated 04.09.2019 passed by learned Single Judge in CS (OS) No. 528/2018. 2. The said Suit was filed by Smt. Abha Gupta against her other siblings, i.e, Ravindra Kumar Gupta/Defendant No. 1, Pradeep Kumar Gupta/ Defendant No. 2, Sh. Sudhir Kumar Gupta/Defendant No. 3, Sh. Rajendra Kumar Gupta/ Defendant No. 4, Sh. Devender Kumar Gupta/ Defendant No. 5, Sh. Mahender Kumar Gupta/ Defendant No. 6, Smt. Manju Gupta/ Defendant No. 7, Smt. Sunita Garg/ Defendant No. 8, all sons and daughters of late Ved Prakash Gupta, seeking partition of two properties bearing Nos. (i) C-268A, Gali No. 9, Bhajanpura, Delhi-110085 and (ii) Plot No, 9, Block Pocket -3, Sector -3, Rohini, Delhi – 110085, by metes and bounds, claiming the following reliefs:

¶23

“a) Pass a preliminary decree for partition of the properties bearing No. Plot No. 9, Block - A, Pocket -3, Sector -3 Rohini, Delhi -110085 measuring about 123.14 sq. mts and C -268 A, Gali no. 9, Bhajanpura, Delhi -110053

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

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 18/03/2026 at 15:43:07

¶26

measuring about 202 sq. yds. by metes and bounds amongst plaintiff and defendants.

¶27

(b) Appoint a local commission with the direction to visit suit property & suggest the mode of partition of suit property.

¶28

(c) Pass a final decree for separating the shares of the plaintiff falling to her share alongwith all defendants of the parties concerned in respect of property bearing No. Plot No. 9, Block -A, Pocket -3, Sector -3, Rohini, Delhi -110085 measuring about 123.14 sq. mts. and C -268 A, Gali no. 9, Bhajanpura, Delhi -110053.

¶29

(d) Pass a decree of partition/distribution among legal heirs in equal share of moveable properties/assets as mentioned is para No. 8 & FDR i.e mentioned in para No. 13 which is illegally retained by the defendant.

¶30

(e) Pass decree of possession of:i. Plot No. 9, Block -A, Pocket -3, Sector -3, Rohini, Delhi - 110085 constructed on plot of land measuring 123.14 sq mts.

¶31

ii. C -268 A, Gali no. 9, Bhajanpura, Delhi -110053 constructed on plot of land.

¶32

(f) A decree of cancellation of relinquishment deed vide Reg. No. 5487, Addl. Book No. 1, Vol. No. 381, on pages 38 to 39 dated 04-071997 declaring it as null & void.

¶33

(g) Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff & against the defendants thereby restraining the defendants, their agents, representatives relatives, assignees, friends, associates etc. from selling, transforming, alienating or parting with possession or creating any third party interest in the suit property bearing No. Plot No. 9, Block -A, Pocket -3, Sector -3, Rohini, Delhi -

¶34

This is a digitally signed order.

¶35

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 18/03/2026 at 15:43:07

¶36

110085 measuring about 123.14 sq. mts. and C -268 A, Gali no. 9, Bhajanpura, Delhi - 110053 and further restrained them to make any addition, alteration, construction, demolition in any manner whatsoever in the suit property.

¶37

(h) Pass a Decree of Recovery of use & occupation charges/damages for a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- i.e. the rate of Rs. 50,000/- p.m. from Defendant no. 1 for the period of Oct, 2015 to Sept, 2018 in favour of the Plaintiff with respect to Suit Property no. 1 and further allot her share of Rs. 2,00,000/- out of it. Also the amount which fall due to the plaintiff against the defendant with pendetelite interest @ 24 % from of filing of suit and till the decretal amount is recovered.

¶38

(i) Pass an order if in case of finding of new information the plaintiff is at liberty to move an application under order 2 rule 2 CPC.

¶39

(j) As to cost of the suit be awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

¶40

(k) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶41

As there was no dispute qua the share of parties to the extent of 1/9^th share in property of Bhajanpura, preliminary decree as well as final decree was passed by learned Single Judge, qua the said property, vide Impugned Order dated 04.09.2019. However, the dispute remained qua the property at Rohini as Defendant No. 1/Ravindra Kumar Gupta was claiming that the said property was bequeathed to him and Rajendra Kumar Gupta/ Defendant No. 4 on the one side and Smt. Abha Gupta/plaintiff on the other side in equal shares without the other defendants having share therein. Defendant

¶42

This is a digitally signed order.

¶43

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 18/03/2026 at 15:43:07

¶44

No. 1/Sh. Ravindra Kumar Gupta is admittedly in possession of Rohini property, but was pleading ignorance qua the mesne profits to the tune of ₹50,000 per month.

¶45

Smt. Abha Gupta/plaintiff has claimed in the Suit that Rohini property originally belonged to the mother of parties in which she, her deceased father, and other siblings had equal 1/10^th share and that except plaintiff/Abha Gupta, and her Sister Smt. Sunita Garg/ Defendant No. 8, all executed a Relinquishment Deed in favour of their father, of which, as claimed by Sh. Ravindra Kumar Gupta - Smt. Abha Gupta and Smt. Sunita Garg had the knowledge and so the Suit is barred by limitation. A Conveyance Deed was also executed by DDA, based on the Relinquishment Deed. He has also claimed that Rohini property was held as benami in the name of Mother of the parties being purchased by their father in the name of their mother. 5. Based on these pleadings/claims, all the Appellants in the above stated appeals pray for reframing of issues qua limitation and Relinquishment Deed. 6. It is contended by both sides that since Relinquishment Deed is in dispute from the side of some of parties and knowledge of its execution by Smt. Abha Gupta and Smt. Sunita Garg is also a disputed question of fact, the above stated issues are required to be framed on Relinquishment Deed and limitation. The decision on the execution of Relinquishment Deed, in consequence shall also have effect on the Conveyance Deed executed by DDA.

¶46

The learned counsel for the Sh. Ravindra Kumar Gupta also raised grievance to the observation of the learned Single Judge in the

¶47

This is a digitally signed order.

¶48

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 18/03/2026 at 15:43:07

¶49

Impugned Order, stating that it will impact his defence in the Suit, which is yet to be decided based on the evidence led by parties in the matter.

¶50

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 9. In FAO(OS) 259/2019, the learned counsel for the appellant agrees, on instructions of his client who is present in-person, that he is not raising any dispute with regard to mesne profits of the property which is assessed @ Rs. 50,000/- per month.

¶51

Parties also agree for the following issues to be further framed in addition to the earlier framed issues:

¶52

(ia) Whether the Relinquishment Deed dated 04.07.1997 allegedly executed by the Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 in favour of their deceased father, late Ved Prakash Gupta is liable to be cancelled? If so, to what effect? (O.P.P)

¶53

(ib) Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? (O.P.D1)

¶54

(ic) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of partition, possession, cancellation, and recovery of mesne profits ? (O.P.P)

¶55

It is further made clear that any observation given in the impugned Order shall not come in the way of either of the parties at the time of hearing of the matter and the matter shall be heard independent of any observation made in the impugned Order.

¶56

We are informed that the evidence of the parties had already started before the learned Single Judge.

¶57

Accordingly, parties are permitted to lead further evidence on these aforesaid additional issues, as per the directions to be passed by the learned Single Judge in pursuance to the Order passed today.

¶58

With these observations, all the three appeals, including

¶59

This is a digitally signed order.

¶60

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 18/03/2026 at 15:43:07

¶61

pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶62

Parties are directed to appear before the learned Single Judge on 25.03.2026.

¶63

VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J

¶64

RENU BHATNAGAR, J

¶65

MARCH 11, 2026 p /ka/ht

¶66

This is a digitally signed order.

¶67

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 18/03/2026 at 15:43:07

Abha Gupta v. Ravindra Kumar Gupta & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abha Gupta v. Ravindra Kumar Gupta & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parveen Pal Bajaj Vs Shri Sunil Bajaj and Ors.

Archana Chopra Vs Anuj Guglani and Ors.

Narinder Nath Verma & Anr. Vs State & Ors.

Gurbani Singh & Anr. Vs Deepak Singh & Anr.

Ansal Housing Limited Vs Samyak Projects Private Limited

National Aviation Company of India Limited Vs Indian Aircraft Technicians Association & Anr.

Air India Limited Vs All India Aircraft Engineers Association & Anr.

Industrial Cables (India) Ltd. Vs Sita Chaudhry and Ors.

Mr Sourav Daspatnaik Vs Stratgrwoth Business Advisors LLP & Ors.

Hdfc Bank Limited Vs M/S Morning Maidens Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Parveen Pal Bajaj Vs Shri Sunil Bajaj and Ors.

Ravinder Kumar Gupta Vs Abha Gupta & Ors.

Sudhir Kumar Gupta Vs Ravindra Kumar Gupta & Ors.

Hemdev Securities (India) Private Limited Vs Tommorrowland Limited