Oral Evidence Cannot Prove Partition or Gift Against Registered Documents and Intestate Succession Laws

The Plaintiff, Anil Kumar Gupta, filed a suit for partition and injunction regarding a three-storey house in Model Town, Delhi

The property was originally owned by his father, Jagdish Prasad Gupta, who died intestate in 1993, leaving seven Class-I heirs

Following the death of his mother, the Plaintiff’s four sisters executed registered Relinquishment Deeds in 2011 and 2018, transferring their 1/6th shares each to him, bringing his claimed total share to 5/6th

The legal representatives (LRs) of the deceased brother, Ashok Kumar Gupta (Defendants 1-6), contested the suit, alleging an "oral partition" occurred 30 years prior and that the father had orally gifted the upper floors to Ashok Kumar

1. Whether the suit property was orally partitioned by Late Sh. Jagdish Prasad Gupta, allotting specific floors to the sons?

2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a 5/6th share and a preliminary decree of partition?

3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to permanent and mandatory injunctions?

Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which mandates that a gift of immovable property must be effected through a registered instrument signed by the donor and attested by two witnesses

Gomtibai v. Mattulal (1996) to affirm that no title passes via an oral gift

Anjana Kumar v. Vivek Goel (2024) regarding the high evidentiary threshold for proving oral partition, specifically the requirement of supporting public documents

Hindustan Succession Act principles regarding intestate succession for Class-I heirs

The Court rejected the defense of oral partition because Defendants 1-6 failed to provide public documents or credible testimony; the witnesses (DW-1 and DW-2) were toddlers at the time of the alleged 1991 partition, rendering their testimony inadmissible hearsay

the Defendants' admission that the sisters were expected to relinquish shares as late as 2011 contradicted the claim of a final partition in 1991

Regarding the "oral gift," the Court held it legally void under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, as no registered deed existed

the Plaintiff successfully proved the father’s title and the validity of the registered Relinquishment Deeds

The claim for a mandatory injunction for title deeds was denied as the Plaintiff failed to prove they were in the Defendants' possession

It passed a preliminary decree of partition declaring the Plaintiff owner of 5/6th share and Defendants 1-6 (collectively) owner of 1/6th share

A permanent injunction was granted against third-party alienation

The Court appointed a Local Commissioner to determine if the property is divisible by metes and bounds

Mandatory injunction for the return of title documents was refused for lack of evidence