Sh. Devi Dayal Gupta (Since Deceased) through Lrs Vs Sh. Nafe Singh Gupta & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sh. Devi Dayal Gupta (Since Deceased) through Lrs Vs Sh. Nafe Singh Gupta & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the Appellant; the Legal Heirs of the Appellant were granted liberty to move an application under Section 3 of the Partition Act, 1893 before the learned Executing Court to buy the share of the other Legal Heirs/owners of the suit property.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Final Decree dated 11.11.2025 is vitiated because no Local Commissioner was appointed under Order XXVI Rules 13 and 14 C.P.C. to ascertain the mode of partition before its passing.

Court's answer

The parties had been given opportunity to submit proposals for the mode of partition, which never came forth; considering the size of the suit property and the number of Legal Heirs, it was held that the property may be sold and the sale proceeds divided among the parties after deducting the necessary expenses of the auction proceedings, in accordance with their respective shares declared in the Preliminary Decree dated 27.11.2024, with liberty to invoke Section 3 of the Partition Act, 1893.

Ratio / Principle

The exercise of ascertaining whether the mode of partition of the suit property was possible through metes and bounds had been undertaken by the Court by seeking proposals for the mode of partition from the parties; the absence of a Local Commissioner did not render the Final Decree unsustainable.

Key takeaways

The Appellant was again given opportunity to get a Local Commissioner appointed by this Court, but only answered that they were willing to buy the share of the other Legal Heirs/owners of the suit property, an option already granted to the Appellant vide the impugned Judgment dated 13.05.2025.ratio¶¶22
The Legal Heirs of the Appellant are at liberty to move an application under Section 3 of the Partition Act, 1893 to buy the share of the other Legal Heirs/owners of the suit property, which may be considered by the learned Executing Court in accordance with law.ratio¶¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Partition — Regular First Appeal under Section 96 C.P.C. against Judgment dated 13.05.2025 and Final Decree dated 11.11.2025 of learned DJ-02, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Court, Delhi in CS No.1804/2016 — sole grievance that no Local Commissioner was appointed under Order XXVI Rule 13 and 14 C.P.C. before passing of the Final Decree — Held: parties had been given opportunity to submit proposals for the mode of partition but none came forth; considering the size of the suit property and the number of Legal Heirs, sale of the property and division of sale proceeds (after deducting auction expenses) per the shares declared in the Preliminary Decree dated 27.11.2024 was proper — Appellant, entitled to 10/36th share, was given further opportunity to seek Local Commissioner but only offered to buy the other co-sharers' shares, an option already granted by the impugned Judgment — Legal Heirs of Appellant at liberty to move application under Section 3 of the Partition Act, 1893 before the Executing Court — Appeal dismissed along with pending applications.

$~4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- RFA 88/2026, CM APPL. 5495/2026

SH. DEVI DAYAL GUPTA (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS

.....Appellant

Through: Mr. Chirag Anand & Mr. Vireshwar Tyagi, Advs.

versus

SH. NAFE SINGH GUPTA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Kapil Gupta, Mr. Mayank Tomar & Mr. Prateek Singh Sikarwar, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

O R D E R

% 02.02.2026 CM APPL. 5496/2026

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Application is disposed of.

RFA 88/2026, CM APPL. 5495/2026 3. Appeal under Section 96 C.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the Appellant against Judgment dated 13.05.2025 and Final Decree dated 11.11.2025 passed by learned DJ-02, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Court, Delhi in CS No.1804/2016, in regard to immovable property bearing No.59, Gali No.2, Near MCD Primary School, Chandu Park, Krishan Nagar, Delhi (area admeasuring 264 sq. Yards).

Only grievance of the Appellant, who is entitled for 10/36^th share in aforesaid suit property, is that before passing Final Decree on 11.11.2025, no Local Commissioner had been appointed to ascertain the mode of partition, in compliance of Order XXVI Rule 13 and 14 C.P.C.

Perusal of record shows that the parties had been given opportunity to submit proposal for the mode of partition, which never came-forth.

This is a digitally signed order.

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 04/02/2026 at 13:10:47

Considering the size of the suit property and number of Legal Heirs, it was held that the property may be sold and the sale proceeds be divided among the parties after deducting the necessary expenses of the auction proceedings, in accordance with their respective shares, as were declared in Preliminary Decree dated 27.11.2024. Moreover, parties had been given liberty to invoke Section 3 of the Partition Act, 1893, at the time of execution of Final Decree.

In regard to appointment of Local Commissioner, it is pertinent to note that considering the size of the suit property and number of Legal Heirs / owners, the exercise had been undertaken by the Court to ascertain if the mode of partition of the suit property was possible through metes and bound, by seeking proposal for mode of partition, from the parties.

Appellant was again given opportunity to get the Local Commissioner appointed by this Court, but they only answered that they are willing to buy the share of the other Legal Heirs / owners of the suit property. This option has already been granted to the Appellant vide impugned Judgment dated 13.05.2025.

Legal Heirs of the Appellant are at liberty to move Application under Section 3 of the Partition Act, 1893, as already observed in the impugned Judgment dated 13.05.2025, to buy the share of other Legal Heirs / owners of the suit property, which may be considered by the learned Executing Court, in accordance with law.

There is no merit in the present Appeal, which is hereby dismissed along with pending Applications.

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

FEBRUARY 2, 2026/ R

This is a digitally signed order. 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 04/02/2026 at 13:10:47