Claims of Oral Partition Upheld; Plaintiff's Suit for Declaration and Partition Found Barred by Limitation
In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a property partition suit filed by Ms. Neelu Chadha, challenging the mutation entries and conveyance deeds related to a property allegedly owned by her late grandfather, Mr. Joti Swarup Sethi. The court held that the suit was barred by limitation and lacked credible evidence to counter claims of an oral partition.
The suit property, located at Anand Niketan, New Delhi, was originally sub-leased to Mr. Joti Swarup Sethi and later mutated in the names of defendants Sunil Sethi and Anil Sethi, his sons. Ms. Chadha, representing herself and her brother, had sought a declaration that the mutation and conveyance deed were null and void, claiming she only became aware of these documents in August 2014. However, the court found contradictions in her claims, noting that she had prior knowledge of the mutation, as reflected in her representation dated July 2014.
Presided over by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, the court analyzed the submissions and evidence presented by both parties. It was established that an oral partition of the properties had taken place among Mr. Joti Swarup Sethi's heirs, supported by documentary evidence and admitted signatures. The court noted that the plaintiff had failed to act within the limitation period to avoid the oral partition, thereby dismissing her claims regarding minors' rights under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.
The judgment emphasized the evidentiary burden on the plaintiff to prove the suit's filing within the prescribed limitation period. Defendants Sunil and Anil Sethi successfully demonstrated their lawful title over the suit property, supported by the execution of release deeds and the conduct of Ms. Chadha's mother, who had executed a release deed relinquishing rights in the suit property.
The court also addressed the issue of limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which requires suits for declaration to be filed within three years from the date of knowledge of the impugned acts/documents. The plaintiff's claims were found to be time-barred, as her knowledge of the mutation preceded the claimed date of discovery.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the suit, finding no cause of action for partition and highlighting the absence of credible evidence to support the plaintiff's claims. The judgment reaffirms the importance of timely legal action and the necessity of substantial evidence in partition suits.
Bottom Line:
A suit seeking partition of property and declaration of mutation entries as null and void can be dismissed on grounds of limitation and absence of credible evidence to counter oral partition claims.
Statutory provision(s): Limitation Act, 1963 Article 58, Limitation Act, 1963 Article 60, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 Section 8
Ms. Neelu Chadha v. Sunil Sethi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2844460
