The Allahabad High Court has breathed new life into a property dispute between siblings from Hapur, setting aside a lower court order that had dismissed the claim of the unmarried daughter. Justice Sandeep Jain ruled on 19 September 2025 that the trial court wrongly held Km. Deepika Rani had no share in her late father’s house and restored her declaratory suit for hearing.
Background
Deepika Rani, the appellant, is the unmarried daughter of late Mahaveer Prasad. After his death in 2002, his widow, daughters and son Vinay Bansal became heirs to a two-storeyed house in Hapur. According to her, she owned one-seventh share.
Wanting to sell her portion to fund an Ashram, she initially gave power of attorney to her brother but cancelled it when promised money was not paid. Soon after, she alleged, Vinay tricked her at the Tehsil office into signing papers that turned out to be a registered gift deed of her share.
She claimed she signed without reading, believing it was only an agreement to sell, and later discovered that her brother had become ostensible owner of her portion without paying her a rupee.
Court's Observations
The trial court in 2016 had thrown out her suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, holding that since her father died before the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, she had no right in the property. But the High Court took a different view.
Quoting the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, Justice Jain stressed that,
"a daughter who was alive on 9 September 2005 became a coparcener irrespective of whether her father was alive or not."
The bench further remarked,
"Even if the house was self-acquired, under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, the plaintiff inherited a one-seventh share along with other heirs. The trial court’s conclusion that she had no share is totally erroneous."
The High Court also noted that at this preliminary stage, the question was only whether her plaint disclosed a cause of action. Since she alleged fraud in execution of the deed, her claim could not be brushed aside without a trial.
Decision
Allowing the appeal, the court set aside the order of the Hapur trial court and restored the original suit for hearing on merits. Justice Jain directed the lower court to proceed expeditiously, without unnecessary delay.
The Judge concluded firmly:
"The impugned judgment of the trial court is wholly perverse. The plaintiff’s right to contest the gift deed cannot be denied at the threshold."
With this, Deepika Rani's fight over her late father’s property is back on track, and the case will now be tested through full trial rather than being dismissed at the starting line.
Case Title & Number: Km. Deepika Rani vs. Vinay Bansal
Case Number: First Appeal No. 148 of 2017
Date of Decision: 19 September 2025