JAG MOHAN GUPTA vs GIRDHARI LAL (DECEASED) — 610164/2016

Case under Partition Section CPC. Disposed: Contested--PARTLY DECREED/DISMISSED on 26th May 2026.

CS DJ - CIVIL SUIT FOR DJ and ADJ

CNR: DLCT010000011972

Case disposed

Filing Number

109909/1972

Filing Date

08-12-1972

Registration No

610164/2016

Registration Date

08-12-1972

Court

District and Sessions Judge, Central, THC

Judge

9-District Judge

Decision Date

26th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--PARTLY DECREED/DISMISSED

Acts & Sections

Partition Section CPC

Petitioner(s)

JAG MOHAN GUPTA

Adv. SH. S.S. MITTAL

CHANDER MOHAN GUPTA

Respondent(s)

GIRDHARI LAL (DECEASED)

ARUN KUMAR JAIN

TARRUN KUMAR JAIN

VIRENDER KUMAR JAIN

SANJEEV KUMAR JAIN

DINESH KUMAR JAIN

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

VIKRAM KUMAR JAIN

SAROJ JAIN

SANJAY JAIN

RAJIV JAIN

NEELIMA JAIN

KAMLA DEVI

ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA

RAJIV KUMAR GUPTA

PRADEEP KUMAR GUPTA

Hearing History

Judge: 9-District Judge

26-05-2026

Disposed

22-05-2026

Misc. cases/purpose

15-05-2026

Misc. cases/purpose

15-04-2026

Misc. cases/purpose

14-03-2026

Misc. cases/purpose

Final Orders / Judgements

26-05-2026
COPY OF ORDER
26-05-2026
COPY OF JUDGMENT

Case Summary: CS 610164/2016 - Jag Mohan Gupta vs. Girdhari Lal Court Decision: The court passed a final decree ordering the sale of the built-up portion of the suit property (ground floor shops F-1 to F-6, first floor, and terrace) at Connaught Place through public auction, with proceeds distributed among parties per their shareholding from the 1980 preliminary decree. Parties retain liberty to invoke Section 3 of the Partition Act (pre-emption rights) during execution proceedings. Key Reasoning: The court found physical partition by metes and bounds impossible due to: (i) 40+ legal heirs across multiple generations with fractional shares; (ii) property location in Lutyens zone restricting further subdivision; (iii) multiple existing tenants and prior individual sales of some shops; and (iv) disagreement on valuations across different property sections. The court rejected alternative partition proposals from defendants as they required consent not obtainable from other parties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

24-08-2016
COPY OF ORDER
31-08-2016
COPY OF ORDER
16-11-2016
COPY OF ORDER
16-01-2017
COPY OF ORDER
16-05-2017
COPY OF ORDER
31-05-2017
COPY OF ORDER
10-07-2017
COPY OF ORDER
18-09-2017
COPY OF ORDER
28-10-2017
COPY OF ORDER
25-11-2017
COPY OF ORDER
20-01-2018
COPY OF ORDER
16-04-2018
COPY OF ORDER
16-07-2018
COPY OF ORDER
23-01-2019
COPY OF ORDER
28-01-2019
COPY OF ORDER
31-01-2019
COPY OF ORDER
20-02-2019
COPY OF ORDER
18-03-2019
COPY OF ORDER
10-04-2019
COPY OF ORDER
21-05-2019
COPY OF ORDER
03-06-2019
COPY OF ORDER
26-07-2019
COPY OF ORDER
21-09-2019
COPY OF ORDER
21-09-2019
COPY OF ORDER
01-10-2019
COPY OF ORDER
07-11-2019
COPY OF ORDER
16-11-2019
COPY OF ORDER
14-01-2020
COPY OF ORDER
31-01-2020
COPY OF ORDER
29-02-2020
COPY OF ORDER
21-03-2020
COPY OF ORDER
06-10-2020
COPY OF ORDER
05-12-2020
COPY OF ORDER
19-12-2020
COPY OF ORDER
19-12-2020
COPY OF ORDER
30-01-2021
COPY OF ORDER
12-11-2021
COPY OF ORDER
03-12-2021
COPY OF ORDER
23-07-2022
COPY OF ORDER
10-10-2022
COPY OF ORDER
31-05-2023
COPY OF ORDER
15-09-2023
COPY OF ORDER
26-09-2023
COPY OF ORDER
12-10-2023
COPY OF ORDER
18-12-2023
COPY OF ORDER
05-01-2024
COPY OF ORDER
23-12-2025
COPY OF ORDER
casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CS 610164/2016 - Jag Mohan Gupta vs. Girdhari Lal Court Decision: The court passed a final decree ordering the sale of the built-up portion of the suit property (ground floor shops F-1 to F-6, first floor, and terrace) at Connaught Place through public auction, with proceeds distributed among parties per their shareholding from the 1980 preliminary decree. Parties retain liberty to invoke Section 3 of the Partition Act (pre-emption rights) during execution proceedings. Key Reasoning: The court found physical partition by metes and bounds impossible due to: (i) 40+ legal heirs across multiple generations with fractional shares; (ii) property location in Lutyens zone restricting further subdivision; (iii) multiple existing tenants and prior individual sales of some shops; and (iv) disagreement on valuations across different property sections. The court rejected alternative partition proposals from defendants as they required consent not obtainable from other parties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District and Sessions Judge, Central, THC All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case