Landmark Judgment by Delhi High Court Reinforces Women’s
On 22nd July 2025, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi delivered a groundbreaking final decree in CS(OS) 78/2023, a civil suit filed by Mrs. Sunita Kumari Ganotra. The verdict underscores key aspects of property law, notably gender justice under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, and sets a significant precedent for handling oral partition claims and disputes over joint ownership. The Plaintiff was ably represented by Advocate Mr. Kirish Gandhi. This article highlights the background, arguments, court directions, and legal impact of this crucial ruling.
Background of the Case and Disputed Properties
The Plaintiff filed the suit seeking partition and permanent injunction in respect of her late father’s joint properties. Her father passed away intestate in 2000, leaving behind undivided properties co-owned equally by the Plaintiff and three other legal heirs. A preliminary decree dated 28.08.2024 had already confirmed a 1/4th share for each heir, and the final hearing aimed to enforce this partition with specific directions.
The properties in dispute included:
- A residential-cum-commercial structure known as the Kedar Building.
- A commercial premises referred to as the Padam Nagar Property.
Plaintiff’s Arguments: Challenging Oral Partition and Asserting Equal Rights
Advocate Mr. Kirish Gandhi presented robust arguments on behalf of the Plaintiff:
1. Rejection of Oral Partition Claims: He argued that the oral partition claim made by two co-owners lacked any documentary evidence. Citing Vineet Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) 9 SCC 1, he emphasized that the Supreme Court had dismissed such bald claims, particularly when they denied rightful shares to female heirs.
2. Reliance on Legal Precedents: He invoked Veeru Prashad Gupta v. Jogeshwari Devi (2018 SCC OnLine Del 10130), asserting that valuable immovable property cannot be lost without concrete proof of partition.
3. Women’s Rights Under Hindu Succession Act: He highlighted the legislative intent of Section 6 of the Act, which mandates equal coparcenary rights for daughters, ensuring they cannot be denied inheritance.
4. Practical Execution Proposals: For timely enforcement, he suggested collaboration with a builder for redevelopment or sale at market value, thereby preventing further delays.
Final Decree: Clear Timelines and Enforceable Orders
The Hon’ble Court accepted the Plaintiff’s submissions and issued a final decree of partition, with the following binding directions:
Timelines for Development or Sale:
Kedar Building: Nine months granted for a collaboration agreement; else, mutual sale or auction.
Padam Nagar Property: Six months for collaboration; otherwise, mutual sale or auction.
Strict Adherence to Deadlines: No extensions shall be granted beyond the stipulated period.
Equal Distribution of Benefits: Any consideration (built-up area or financial payment) from redevelopment shall be equally shared among all four co-owners.
Possession Enforcement: Non-cooperative co-owners obstructing possession shall face legal dispossession proceedings akin to recovering immovable property.
Cost Sharing: Stamp duty for the decree will be shared equally.
Withdrawal of Oral Partition Claims: The Court recorded the formal withdrawal of oral partition claims, reaffirming the properties as joint holdings.
Legal Significance: Advancing Justice and Deterring Unfair Claims
This verdict has far-reaching implications:
Empowerment of Women in Inheritance: The ruling reinforces equal property rights for daughters under the amended Hindu Succession Act and ensures legal ownership overrides mere possession.
Discouraging Unsubstantiated Claims: It sets a deterrent against baseless oral partition defenses, which are often used to deprive rightful heirs.
Realistic and Modern Execution: By suggesting practical enforcement mechanisms, the Court bridges the gap between declaratory legal rights and their actual implementation.
*Upholding Equitable Possession:# Recognizing the exclusion of two co-owners, the Court ensured justice in both legal and practical terms through equitable possession orders.