Delhi High Court Restrains Sale of Family Properties in Partition Suit, Finds Prima Facie Case on Ancestral Property and Dementia Plea
Facts
The plaintiff, Ajay Jain, filed a suit for declaration, partition and permanent injunction concerning 13 properties allegedly left behind by his father, late Mahabir Prasad Jain, who died intestate on 28.04.2025. The plaintiff, defendant no.1 Anil Jain, defendant no.2 Anita Jain and defendant no.3, the widow of late Mahabir Prasad Jain, were stated to be the Class I legal heirs.
The plaintiff also challenged nine gift deeds executed in favour of defendant no.1, one gift deed in favour of defendant nos.1 and 2, and one rectification deed dated 08.01.2025, alleging that they were fraudulent, illegal, invalid and not binding on him.
The interim application was filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking restraint against the defendants from selling, alienating or creating third-party rights in the suit properties during the pendency of the suit.
Issues
- Whether the plaintiff made out a prima facie case for interim injunction in a partition suit involving properties allegedly having ancestral/coparcenary character.
- Whether late Mahabir Prasad Jain was prima facie competent to execute gift deeds in respect of the suit properties.
- Whether the plea that late Mahabir Prasad Jain was suffering from dementia and lacked capacity to execute the gift deeds required trial.
- Whether the suit was patently barred by limitation at the interim stage.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The plaintiff argued that the properties came to the branch of late Mahabir Prasad Jain under a registered partition deed dated 03.02.1995. He relied on a clause in the partition deed stating that the wives and sons of each branch head would have a share in the share of their respective husband/father.
According to the plaintiff, the properties allotted to Mahabir Prasad Jain retained their ancestral/coparcenary character as regards his sons. Therefore, Mahabir Prasad Jain was not the exclusive owner and could not have unilaterally gifted the properties to defendant nos.1 and 2.
The plaintiff further argued that certain later-acquired properties were purchased from the sale proceeds of ancestral properties and from the joint family nucleus. Therefore, those properties also had the character of ancestral/joint family properties.
The plaintiff also alleged that Mahabir Prasad Jain was suffering from dementia since at least August 2021, with progressive forgetfulness, and defendant nos.1 and 2 took advantage of his medical condition to get the gift deeds executed between December 2021 and February 2022.
On limitation, the plaintiff submitted that he came to know about the gift deeds only on 26.05.2025 and obtained certified copies thereafter. Hence, the suit was within limitation, and in any case, limitation was a mixed question of fact and law.
Respondent’s Arguments
Defendant no.1 argued that the partition deed of 03.02.1995 made the properties the separate and absolute properties of the respective allottees. Therefore, Mahabir Prasad Jain was competent to deal with the properties and execute gift deeds.
It was submitted that properties described in paras 1.6 to 1.13 of the plaint were self-acquired properties of Mahabir Prasad Jain, purchased from his own funds and resources.
The defendants also argued that the plaintiff’s own conduct contradicted his claim of ancestral property, because he allegedly claimed to have purchased one portion of a suit property from his father.
Defendant no.1 disputed the dementia plea and argued that the medical documents relied upon by the plaintiff did not belong to Mahabir Prasad Jain. It was also argued that Mahabir Prasad Jain had been cross-examined in other proceedings between 2019 and 2025, and his answers showed that he was mentally capable.
On limitation, the defendant argued that the gift deeds were executed between December 2021 and February 2022, while the suit was filed only in July 2025, and was therefore barred.
Analysis of the Law
The Court held that at the interim stage, it was required to examine whether the plaintiff had established a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.
On the nature of the properties, the Court noted that the parties had taken divergent stands. However, defendant no.1 had himself pleaded that properties mentioned in paras 1.1 to 1.5 of the plaint had “lost their ancestral character” after the partition deed. The Court found that this pleading prima facie amounted to an admission that before the 1995 partition, those properties were ancestral.
The Court held that under Hindu law, a share obtained by a coparcener on partition of ancestral property remains ancestral property as regards his male issue. Therefore, the properties at paras 1.1 to 1.5 prima facie retained their ancestral character in the hands of Mahabir Prasad Jain, and the plaintiff and defendant no.1 continued to have interest as coparceners.
However, for properties at paras 1.6 to 1.13, the Court found that there was no direct evidence at this stage to show that they were purchased from the sale proceeds of ancestral properties or from a common nucleus. Therefore, the Court did not record a prima facie finding that those properties were ancestral.
Still, the Court held that even if those properties were treated as self-acquired, the plaintiff’s challenge could survive if he proved that Mahabir Prasad Jain lacked sound disposing capacity when the gift deeds were executed.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied on Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam to hold that admissions in pleadings or judicial admissions stand on a higher footing and can form the foundation of parties’ rights.
The Court relied on Shyam Narayan Prasad v. Krishna Prasad, where the Supreme Court held that property inherited by a male Hindu from his father, grandfather or great-grandfather is ancestral property, and the share obtained on partition remains ancestral as regards male issue.
The Court also relied on Rohit Chauhan v. Surinder Singh, where the Supreme Court held that property allotted on partition may be separate while in the hands of a sole coparcener, but once a son is born, it becomes coparcenary property and the son acquires an interest by birth.
The Court considered M. Yogendra v. Leelamma N. on the concept of revival of coparcenary property. It distinguished the reliance placed by defendant no.1 on Angadi Chandranna, observing that the principle that partitioned property becomes self-acquired must be understood in light of earlier Supreme Court precedents.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case in respect of properties originally forming part of the ancestral estate and allotted to Mahabir Prasad Jain in the 1995 partition.
On the dementia plea, the Court examined the medical prescription dated 28.08.2021 issued by Dr. Rajesh Gupta of Max Hospital. The prescription recorded a provisional diagnosis of dementia, with history of progressive forgetfulness for two years. The Court also considered the hospital invoice and tax invoice and found that the discrepancy regarding an Uttarakhand address appeared prima facie to be a typographical error, especially since the hospital ID and mobile number matched.
The Court therefore held that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case that Mahabir Prasad Jain was suffering from dementia since at least August 2021. Since the gift deeds were executed shortly thereafter, between December 2021 and February 2022, the plea that he lacked capacity could not be rejected at the interim stage.
On limitation, the Court held that the plaint claimed knowledge of the gift deeds only on 26.05.2025. On a plain reading of the plaint, the suit did not appear patently barred by limitation. The Court held that limitation, in the facts of the case, was a mixed question of fact and law requiring trial.
The Court also held that if interim protection was not granted and the properties were alienated during the pendency of the suit, nothing may remain available for partition if the plaintiff ultimately succeeded.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.
The defendants were restrained from selling, alienating or creating third-party rights in the suit properties during the pendency of the suit.
The Court clarified that several issues, including the effect of the MoU dated 18.03.2014, the nature of later-acquired properties, limitation and the validity of the gift deeds, would require trial and evidence.
Case Details
Case: Sh. Ajay Jain v. Sh. Anil Jain & Ors.
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: CS(OS) 426/2025
Judge: Justice Vikas Mahajan
Date: 8 July 2026
Result: Interim injunction granted; defendants restrained from selling, alienating or creating third-party rights in the suit properties during pendency of the suit.
