Daughter Relinquishes Share in Mother’s Property but Claims Sale Proceeds Funded Father’s New House; Delhi High Court Rejects Partition Claim for Lack of Evidence
Woman Seeks One-Third Share in Property Allegedly Purchased From Mother’s Estate Proceeds; Delhi High Court Upholds Dismissal of Partition Suit
Facts
The dispute was between members of the same family. Smt. Shashi Verma, the plaintiff/appellant, was the daughter of Late Ram Babu Verma and Late Shakuntala Devi. The other parties included her siblings Anita, Subhash Chand Verma and Sunita. SMT. SHASHI VERMA
The mother, Shakuntala Devi, owned a 50 sq. yard property at G-12/14, Gali No. 4, Brahampuri, Shahdara, Delhi. She died intestate on 20 August 2008, leaving her husband and four children as Class-I legal heirs. SMT. SHASHI VERMA
On 7 January 2014, Shashi Verma, her father Ram Babu Verma and sister Anita relinquished their respective shares in the Brahampuri property in favour of their brother Subhash Chand Verma. An amount of ₹23 lakh was paid in relation to the relinquished shares. SMT. SHASHI VERMA
Shashi’s case was that the ₹23 lakh was not distributed among them. Instead, it was entrusted to her father for purchasing another property jointly in the names of Shashi, her father and Anita. SMT. SHASHI VERMA
According to her, a Bayana Agreement was entered into for purchase of A-3/223, Nand Nagri, Shahdara for ₹19.50 lakh, with ₹50,000 paid as earnest money. The title documents were allegedly to be executed jointly, with the ground floor falling to Shashi’s share. SMT. SHASHI VERMA
She alleged that her father and sister Anita colluded and had the title documents executed earlier than agreed, thereby excluding her from ownership. She therefore claimed that the newly acquired property was ancestral/HUF property in which she was entitled to a one-third share. SMT. SHASHI VERMA
Defendants’ Case
The defendants admitted that:
- the Brahampuri property belonged to Shakuntala Devi;
- Shashi, Ram Babu and Anita relinquished their respective shares; and
- ₹23 lakh was paid in connection with those shares.
However, they asserted that the ₹23 lakh had been divided equally, with Shashi receiving approximately ₹7,66,700 in cash.
They claimed that Ram Babu thereafter purchased the Nand Nagri property for ₹8.50 lakh from his own share and that none of Shashi’s money remained with them. SMT. SHASHI VERMA
They specifically denied:
- any agreement for joint purchase;
- that ₹50,000 Bayana was paid on behalf of all three;
- that title documents were to be jointly executed; and
- that the ground floor was to belong to Shashi.
Ram Babu claimed the suit property to be his exclusive self-acquired property. SMT. SHASHI VERMA
Reliefs Sought
Shashi Verma sought:
Declaration + Partition + Possession + Permanent Injunction
and, alternatively, recovery of ₹7,66,666 representing her alleged share in the ₹23 lakh consideration. SMT. SHASHI VERMA
The Trial Court dismissed the entire suit.
Issues
The principal issue was whether the Nand Nagri property had been purchased using the ₹23 lakh received from relinquishment of rights in the Brahampuri property. SMT. SHASHI VERMA
This raised three consequential questions:
- Whether Shashi had actually received her ₹7.66 lakh share.
- Whether her money had instead remained with her father and was used to purchase the new property.
- Whether the new property therefore acquired the character of joint family/HUF property, giving Shashi a right to partition and possession.
Appellant’s Arguments
Shashi’s principal challenge was directed at the burden of proof.
She argued that once the defendants specifically pleaded that they had paid her ₹7,66,700 in cash, it was for them to prove that payment.
No receipt, bank statement, account entry or other documentary evidence showing payment to her was produced. Nor did the defendants examine the independent witnesses who allegedly witnessed the cash payment. SMT. SHASHI VERMA
She also argued that payment could not simply be presumed from execution of the Relinquishment Deed, particularly because the deed itself did not record receipt of ₹7,66,700 by her.
The Trial Court’s observation that “no prudent person” would relinquish immovable property without receiving consideration was challenged as an assumption unsupported by evidence. SMT. SHASHI VERMA
Shashi further relied upon the close chronological proximity between:
Relinquishment of Brahampuri property → receipt of ₹23 lakh → purchase of Nand Nagri property.
She argued that this chronology, coupled with her immediate legal notice asserting rights in the newly purchased property, corroborated the alleged family arrangement. SMT. SHASHI VERMA
Analysis of the Law
1. Source of Funds Was the Decisive Question
The High Court treated the source of funds used for purchasing the Nand Nagri property as decisive.
It was undisputed that the Brahampuri property belonged to Shakuntala Devi and, upon her intestate death, devolved upon her husband and four children as her Class-I heirs. SMT. SHASHI VERMA
It was also undisputed that Shashi subsequently executed the Relinquishment Deed dated 7 January 2014.
Therefore, merely establishing that she had previously held an inherited share in the Brahampuri property did not establish any right in the subsequently purchased Nand Nagri property.
She had to connect her inherited money to the acquisition of the new property.
2. Relinquishment Deed Was Never Challenged
The Court attached significance to the fact that the Relinquishment Deed admittedly bore Shashi’s signatures and had never been challenged by her. SMT. SHASHI VERMA
This considerably weakened a case premised upon her continuing proprietary interest in the proceeds.
The Court accepted the Trial Court’s finding that after executing the relinquishment deed, she had to independently establish that her share of the consideration nevertheless remained with her father and was subsequently invested in the suit property.
3. No Evidence Traced ₹23 Lakh Into New Property
This is the most important factual finding.
The High Court held that there was “not an iota of evidence” showing that:
- the defendants retained the ₹23 lakh; or
- any portion of the Brahampuri consideration was used to purchase the Nand Nagri property. SMT. SHASHI VERMA
No documentary or other cogent evidence established the required financial nexus.
Thus, the fact that the new property was purchased around the same period did not itself prove that it was acquired from the proceeds of the earlier property.
4. Claim of HUF/Joint Family Property Failed
Shashi characterised the new property as ancestral/HUF property because, according to her, it had been acquired from money originating from the mother’s property.
The Court rejected this argument because there was no evidence that the new property had been acquired from a joint family corpus. SMT. SHASHI VERMA
This distinction is important:
A property does not acquire HUF/joint-family character merely because another property previously belonged to family members.
The claimant must establish the existence of the relevant joint-family corpus and demonstrate that the subsequent acquisition was made from that corpus.
That evidentiary link was absent here.
5. Failure to Examine Available Witnesses
The Court also relied upon Shashi’s cross-examination.
She admitted that when the Relinquishment Deed was executed, several identified persons—including Anita, Subhash Chand Verma, Ram Babu Verma, Manoj Kumar Verma and Mukesh Kumar Verma—were present, and that the cash had been counted by Rajan Verma.
Yet none of these persons was examined by Shashi to corroborate her assertion that she had not received her share of the consideration. SMT. SHASHI VERMA
Thus, although Shashi criticised the defendants for failing to prove cash payment, the High Court also found that she had failed to lead available corroborative evidence supporting her own version.
6. Mere Timing of Two Transactions Was Insufficient
The appellant placed substantial reliance on the fact that relinquishment and purchase of the new property occurred in close proximity.
The Court nevertheless required proof of the actual financial trail.
The judgment therefore effectively distinguishes between:
Circumstantial proximity — the two transactions occurred around the same time;
and
Proof of source of acquisition — evidence that money from the first transaction actually funded the second.
Only the latter could support her claim to proprietary rights in the new property.
Petitioner’s Evidence
Shashi examined herself as PW-1 and relied upon:
- site plan;
- legal notice dated 28 January 2014;
- defendants’ reply dated 12 February 2014;
- Relinquishment Deed;
- transcript and CD of a telephone conversation;
- postal receipt; and
- Section 65-B Evidence Act certificate. SMT. SHASHI VERMA
However, the Court found none of this evidence sufficient to establish the essential financial link between the ₹23 lakh and purchase of the suit property.
Precedent Analysis
Unlike many property judgments, the High Court’s determination here was predominantly factual and evidentiary.
The judgment does not formulate its conclusion through extensive reliance upon Supreme Court authorities. Instead, it applies ordinary principles concerning:
burden of proof, proof of source of funds, effect of an admitted relinquishment deed, and the evidentiary requirements for claiming that subsequently acquired property formed part of a joint-family corpus.
The decisive failure was not the absence of a particular legal proposition—it was the absence of evidence tracing the alleged funds into the subsequent acquisition.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court’s reasoning can be reduced to the following sequence:
Mother owned Brahampuri property
↓
Mother died intestate and property devolved upon five Class-I heirs
↓
Shashi admittedly executed Relinquishment Deed dated 7 January 2014
↓
₹23 lakh was admittedly paid in connection with the relinquished shares
↓
Defendants said Shashi received ₹7.66 lakh; Shashi denied receiving it
↓
Shashi alleged her money remained with father and funded Nand Nagri property
↓
No documentary evidence traced her money into that purchase
↓
No evidence established a joint-family/HUF corpus used to acquire the property
↓
No proprietary right in the Nand Nagri property was established.
The High Court therefore affirmed the Trial Court’s conclusion that Shashi had failed to establish either that she had not received her share of the earlier consideration or that her money was invested in the subsequent property. SMT. SHASHI VERMA
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld dismissal of Shashi Verma’s suit for declaration, partition, possession and permanent injunction. SMT. SHASHI VERMA
Her alternative claim for recovery of ₹7,66,666 also remained rejected.
The useful proposition emerging from the judgment is:
A person claiming a share in subsequently acquired property on the ground that proceeds from an earlier family property funded its purchase must prove the financial nexus; mere proximity between the transactions or a family relationship is insufficient.
The Court also granted Shashi Verma eight weeks to pay the deficit court fee, failing which it was directed to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. SMT. SHASHI VERMA
Case Details
Case: Smt. Shashi Verma v. Late Sh. Ram Babu Verma & Ors.
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case Number: RFA 492/2026 with CM APPL. 32425–32429/2026
CNR: DLHC010216442026 SMT. SHASHI VERMA
Judge: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna SMT. SHASHI VERMA
Reserved: 20 July 2026
Pronounced: 28 September 2026 SMT. SHASHI VERMA
Result: Appeal dismissed; dismissal of suit for declaration, partition, possession, injunction and alternative monetary recovery upheld.
