Summary: The Delhi High Court recently made a decision on a family argument about a property in New Delhi. The court decided not to stop the sale of the property, which affected the claims of Vipin Kumar Manaktala against his relatives.
In this case, Vipin Kumar Manaktala challenged an earlier court decision from September 13, 2012. This decision was based on a family agreement that Vipin says he was not a part of. The property in question is located on Rama Road, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi.
The property, measuring 3925.6 meters, was originally owned by three brothers: Sh. Satya Pal, Sh. Tilak Raj, and Sh. Prithvi Raj. After the partition of India, the family settled in Delhi and started a soap manufacturing business. The property was officially bought in 1971.
Vipin claims that there was a spoken agreement among the brothers that the property would go to Sh. Satya Pal. However, no official papers were made to confirm this agreement.
In 1987, Sh. Tilak Raj filed a case to divide the property, claiming shared ownership. The case continued even after Sh. Satya Pal's death in 2006, with his family members, including Vipin, being added to the case.
The case was settled in 2012 without Vipin's involvement. A large part of the property was sold to M/s Gora Mal Hari Ram Pvt. Ltd. and other parties, which Vipin later opposed.
Vipin filed a case in 2020 asking to cancel the 2012 settlement and to stop further sale of the property. He argued that he was not informed about the settlement and that his interests were not protected.
The court, led by Judges Anil Kshetrapal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, decided on December 17, 2025, to keep the previous decisions. They ruled that:
The court rejected Vipin's appeal, keeping things the same and protecting the interests of third-party buyers. This decision highlights the complexity of family property disputes and the importance of having clear legal agreements.
"The Plaintiff suffers no irreparable injury, as his alleged share stands adequately secured," the judgment noted.
This case serves as a reminder of the complicated dynamics involved in family property disputes and the critical role of clear legal agreements.
