The Delhi High Court has dismissed a suit for partition filed by a granddaughter seeking a share in her late grandfather’s property, ruling that the suit was barred by limitation and that a prior oral family settlement from 1978 had been validly established.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav presided over the case of Ms. Neelu Chadha vs. Sunil Sethi and Others (2026:DHC:655), holding that transactions made by a natural guardian on behalf of a minor without court permission are voidable, not void ab initio, and must be challenged within the prescribed limitation period after attaining majority.
Background of the Case
The dispute centered on a property bearing No. C-99, Anand Niketan, New Delhi, originally owned by late Mr. Joti Swarup Sethi. The plaintiff, Ms. Neelu Chadha, is the daughter of late Mr. Satish Sethi, who was one of Mr. Joti Swarup Sethi’s sons.
According to the facts, Mr. Joti Swarup Sethi died intestate in 1972, leaving behind his wife, Mrs. Ved Sethi, and three sons: Sunil Sethi (Defendant No. 1), Anil Sethi (Defendant No. 2), and Satish Sethi (Plaintiff’s father). Satish Sethi passed away in 1977, leaving behind the plaintiff, her brother (Defendant No. 4), and their mother (Defendant No. 3).
The plaintiff alleged that after her father’s death, she and her family were maltreated and forced to leave the suit property. She claimed that the property was wrongfully mutated in the names of Defendants No. 1 and 2, and a Conveyance Deed was executed in their favor in 2007. She sought a decree of partition, declaration that the mutation and Conveyance Deed were null and void, and a permanent injunction.
Arguments Raised
Plaintiff’s Contentions: The plaintiff argued that no valid partition had taken place. Relying on Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (HMGA), her counsel contended that any purported oral family arrangement in 1978 could not bind the plaintiff as she was a minor at the time and no leave of the court was obtained.
Furthermore, the plaintiff argued that the Release Deed dated December 12, 1978, was unregistered and thus inadmissible under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Yellappu Uma Maheshwari v. Buddha Jagadeeshwara Rao, it was argued that unregistered documents cannot affect immovable property rights.
Defendants’ Contentions: Defendants No. 1 and 2, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Alok Kumar, asserted that the properties of late Joti Swarup Sethi were orally partitioned on September 23, 1978. They submitted that the suit property fell to the share of Defendants No. 1, 2, and their mother, Mrs. Ved Sethi, while a commercial property at Sewa Nagar fell to the share of the plaintiff’s branch (represented by her mother).
The defendants argued the suit was barred by limitation under Article 60 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a three-year period for a ward to set aside a transfer of property made by a guardian after attaining majority. Since the plaintiff attained majority in 1993, the limitation period expired in 1996.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
On Limitation and Knowledge of Mutation The Court examined the issue of limitation regarding the prayer for declaration. The plaintiff claimed she became aware of the mutation only on August 14, 2014. However, the Court noted a contradiction in her own representation dated July 29, 2014, where she explicitly detailed the alleged forgery and mutation.
Justice Kaurav observed:
“A perusal of the same clearly indicates that the plaintiff had knowledge of the impugned mutation prior to 14.08.2014, i.e., the claimed date… The evidentiary burden on the issue of limitation has been discharged by defendants no. 1 and 2 by highlighting from the plaintiff’s own representation that the alleged date of knowledge is contrary to record.”
Consequently, the Court held the relief for declaration barred by Article 58 of the Limitation Act. However, regarding the relief for partition, the Court cited Vidya Devi alias Vidya Vati (dead) by LRs v. Prem Prakash, reaffirming that “The legislature has not prescribed any period of limitation for filing a suit for partition.”
Validity of Oral Partition and Section 8 of HMGA The Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the 1978 partition was invalid because she was a minor and no court permission was taken. Interpreting Section 8(3) of the HMGA, the Court clarified that such transactions are “voidable” and not “void.”
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Vishwambhar v. Lakshminarayan, stating:
“There is a sound juristic distinction between void instruments/transactions and voidable instruments/transactions. A voidable instrument/transaction continues to be valid till the time it is avoided. In order to avoid the same, the plaintiff ought to have acted within the limitation period.”
Since the plaintiff attained majority in 1993, she should have challenged the transaction by 1996. Filing the suit in 2014 was held to be too late.
Admissibility of Unregistered Documents Regarding the unregistered Release Deed (Exhibit DW-1/12), the Court held it admissible for the collateral purpose of proving the oral partition, invoking the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act.
“Exhibit DW-1/12 is being relied upon by the defendants not to prove the relinquishment by defendant no. 3, but to prove an oral partition, which does not require any registered instrument to be effected and is a collateral transaction…”
Conduct of the Plaintiff’s Family The Court noted that the plaintiff’s mother (Defendant No. 3) had sold the commercial property allotted to their share to a third party. The Court remarked:
“Their conspicuous silence on this aspect actually raises a question regarding the bona fide nature of the present claim.”
Decision
The High Court concluded that the defendants had successfully proved the oral partition of 1978 through cogent documentary evidence, including receipts and release deeds. As the property had already been partitioned and the plaintiff’s branch had acted upon it, the Court held there was no joint property to be partitioned.
Justice Kaurav ruled:
“In the absence of proof of jointness, there is no question of partition of the suit property. Consequently, the prayer for partition is without any cause of action.”
The suit was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Case Details:
Case Title: Ms. Neelu Chadha vs. Sunil Sethi and Others
Case Number: CS(OS) 2046/2015 & I.A. 14119/2015
