Perpetual Lease Allows Division of Property: Delhi High Court Affirms Partition and Validity of Purdah Wall

Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the Jain family in the long-standing dispute over the partition of the property at 4 Cavalry Lines, Delhi. In the consolidated suits CS(OS) 1300/1992 and CS(OS) 2069/1998, the Court declared that the property was divisible under the terms of the Perpetual Lease Deed, affirming the partition and allowing the construction of a purdah wall by the Jain family. The Court dismissed the Gupta family's claims that the property was indivisible, setting a precedent for interpreting lease agreements in property disputes.

The dispute revolved around two interconnected suits involving the Gupta and Jain families. The Gupta family, in CS(OS) 1300/1992, sought a declaration that the property was incapable of partition and an injunction to prevent the Jain family from constructing a partition wall. In contrast, the Jain family, in CS(OS) 2069/1998, sought ownership of the North East half of the property and the right to construct a boundary wall. The property had a complex ownership history, beginning with a perpetual lease granted in 1951, and was subsequently transferred to both families through agreements in 1983.

The main legal issue was whether the property could be divided under the Perpetual Lease Deed. The deed allowed assignment, transfer, or sub-lease of the premises or any part thereof, with the requirement of notifying the Military Estate Officer. The Court noted that the lease deed did not prohibit sub-division or partition of the property. As stated by the Court, "Had this been the intention of the lessor that the suit property cannot be divided, it would have been so laid down in the Perpetual Lease Deed." The Court found no restrictions in the lease that would prevent division, leading to the conclusion that the property could be partitioned.

The Jain family constructed a purdah wall in 1991 within their portion of the property. The Gupta family argued that the wall was meant to prevent soil erosion and siltage but could not provide substantive evidence. The Court found that the wall, alongside a black line through the verandahs, served as a partition between the properties, as specified in the ATS. The lack of objections from the Gupta family suggested acceptance of the division​.

Sale deeds executed in favor of the Jain family reaffirmed the division indicated in the ATS. These deeds described the North East half portion in detail, aligning with the area occupied by the Jain family. The Court deemed these sale deeds valid and not barred by the doctrine of "Post Litem Motam," which typically applies to statements or declarations rather than registered sale deeds​.

The Court held that the property was divided when the ATS was executed, with the Jain family occupying the North East portion and the Gupta family the South West portion. The Court granted the Jain family's suit for a declaration of ownership of the North East portion and for an injunction. The Court restrained the Gupta family from creating obstacles and interfering in the Jain family's possession and completion of the purdah wall. As a result, the Gupta family's suit claiming the property was incapable of partition was dismissed​.

The Court ruled in favor of the Jain family, dismissing the Gupta family's suit. No orders were made regarding costs. The Court acknowledged the legal teams' assistance in resolving this long-standing dispute​.

Date of Decision: September 17, 2024

Rajeshwar Nath Gupta & Others vs. Ashok Jain & Others,