Burden of Proof Lies on Party Claiming Joint Family Property: Delhi High Court Upholds Concurrent Findings of Title Based on Registered Documents

1. Case Snapshot

Case Name: Ram Ashrya Upadhyay & Anr vs Vijay Narain Upadhyay

Citation: RSA No. — (Delhi High Court)

High Court: High Court of Delhi

Bench: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

Date of Judgment: 29th June, 2026

Area of Law: Property Law, Civil Procedure Code, Evidence Law, Joint Family Property, Possession

2. Judgment in Brief

The Delhi High Court dismissed a Regular Second Appeal filed by the defendants challenging concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, which had decreed the plaintiff's suit for possession of the suit property. The plaintiff claimed ownership based on a chain of title documents, including General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, and Receipt executed by the erstwhile owner. The defendants, who were the plaintiff's nephews, claimed that the property was purchased from joint family funds in the name of their grandfather and that they had raised construction with permission. The High Court held that the defendants failed to prove their claim of joint family property or any contribution towards purchase, as they had no documentary evidence and did not examine their grandfather (the best witness). The Court also held that the receipt relied upon by the defendants was not pleaded in the written statement and was untrustworthy. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

3. Relevant Facts

The Property and Purchase

• The plaintiff, Vijay Narain Upadhyay, filed Suit No. 640/2012 for Possession, Damages, and Mesne Profits in respect of property bearing No. RZ-H-141, Raj Nagar Part-II, Palam, New Delhi, measuring approximately 150 square yards.

• The plaintiff claimed to have purchased the suit property from Smt. Saroj Chopra on 24.11.1984 through a set of documents comprising General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Receipt, Affidavit, and Will.

• Smt. Saroj Chopra had herself purchased the property through a registered Sale Deed from the previous owners.

• The plaintiff constructed three rooms, kitchen, latrine, bathroom on the Ground Floor, and one room on the First Floor from his own resources.

Permissive Occupation by Defendants

• The defendants (appellants) are the plaintiff's nephews.

• They were permitted to occupy one room on the first floor on account of close family relationship.

• In January 2002, the defendants broke open the locks and occupied the entire Ground Floor as well.

• The plaintiff approached the local police, but no action was taken.

• The plaintiff served a Legal Notice dated 14.08.2002, but it was returned unserved.

Defendants' Claim

• The defendants claimed that the suit property was a Joint Family Property purchased from joint family funds in the name of Sh. Kanshi Upadhyay (the plaintiff's father and defendants' grandfather).

• They claimed that the plaintiff was merely the Power of Attorney Holder and did not have any title.

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.