Family disputes can be tricky especially those involving property. In one such case a brother-in-law allegedly did not pay the full due amount to the sister-in-law for the sale of land. The family property dispute over 26 bighas of land in Najafgarh ended up in court with the Delhi High Court now directing the brother-in-law to pay the daughters of a deceased co-owner Rs 1,01,78,074, along with 8% annual interest.The property dispute was related to four women who jointly purchased land. Each held one-fourth undivided share. One of them later gave her brother-in-law a general power of attorney (GPA) because she was living in West Bengal, while he was based in Delhi.The brother-in-law eventually used the GPA when the property was sold in 2011. The dispute began when the sister-in-law received only Rs 71.99 lakh from the transaction instead of her full share of the sale proceeds.
What the property dispute case is about
On March 29, 1985, a woman and her three sisters-in-law purchased 26 bighas of land in Najafgarh, New Delhi through a registered sale deed. The property was subsequently mutated, with the woman recorded as holding a one-fourth undivided share.On the same day, she executed a notarised GPA in favour of her brother-in-law. The GPA was registered in Siliguri and allowed him to manage the property, including a clause giving him the power to gift it to anyone he wished.In 2011, three of the land owners sold the land in their own capacity, while the brother-in-law acted for the woman under the GPA. The 26-bigha property was sold to a public limited company for Rs 6.95 crore through a registered sale deed dated April 11, 2011. The woman, however, was paid only Rs 71.99 lakh.She learnt about the sale when that money was transferred to her. Until then, she did not know that the property had been sold for Rs 6.95 crore. Her one-fourth share of the sale consideration worked out to about Rs 1.73 crore, leaving roughly Rs 1.01 crore unpaid.The dispute eventually reached court. The woman died intestate, without leaving a Will. Her three daughters then continued the legal proceedings and ultimately won before the Delhi High Court on August 31, 2026.Advocates Vikas Arora, Ms Rashi Priya and Vansh Arora represented the daughters. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna heard the case, according to an ET report.
Why did the daughters win the case?
Adnan Siddiqui, Partner at King Stubb and Kasiva, told ET that the court’s reasoning was largely based on the brother-in-law’s own documents, particularly the registered GPA and sale deed.Those documents identified the said woman and three others as the “Vendors” and “absolute owners/bhumidars” of the Najafgarh property. The sale deed also showed the brother-in-law executing the transaction in his capacity as a GPA holder.Siddiqui says: “Since a registered document is treated as speaking for itself under the Evidence Act, he could not later turn around and claim, without proof, that the land actually belonged to him and his wife alone.”The brother-in-law had argued that the GPA’s “power to gift” clause effectively gave him ownership of the property. The High Court rejected that interpretation.Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2012), the court reiterated that a GPA is an instrument of agency, not a conveyance of ownership. It permits someone to act on behalf of the owner but does not itself transfer ownership to the GPA holder.The court therefore held that the GPAs only authorised the brother-in-law to look after, manage and supervise the said undivided share and to sell, transfer or gift it on her behalf.The Delhi High Court said: “They (GPAs) were not executed for any consideration, and were not coupled with any interest of the brother-in-law in the property.”The brother-in-law also claimed that he and his wife had actually purchased the Najafgarh land with their own funds and that the names of the women had been included merely for convenience.The High Court did not accept this claim. The registered sale deed described the four women as the absolute owners/bhumidars and recorded the brother-in-law as the GPA holder.The court held that general and unsubstantiated assertions could not override what was recorded in a registered instrument. It also noted that the brother-in-law had not produced evidence to substantiate his claim that he and his wife had paid for the property.His income tax return provided another problem for his version. The High Court found that the Rs 6.95 crore capital gains from the sale were not reflected in his ITR.The court said: “Moreover, if the entire consideration was paid by the brother-in-law, no prudent person would invest such money and buy property in the name of others, and that too, vide (through) separate sale deeds.”
The Rs 72 lakh “loan” defence
The brother-in-law also tried to explain the Rs 71.99 lakh paid to the woman in another way. He claimed that the money was actually a friendly, interest-free loan and was not her share of the property sale proceeds.His own earlier response to a police complaint made this explanation difficult to sustain. One of the sisters-in-law had filed a report at Lajpat Nagar Police Station, and in his written reply the brother-in-law admitted that he had deposited the identical amount of around Rs 72 lakh into the accounts of all three sisters-in-law around the same time.In that reply, he expressly stated that the payments were not made “out of any obligation”. He did not describe them as loans.There was also documentary evidence from the woman’s side. She had declared the Rs 71.99 lakh in her income tax return as long-term capital gains arising from the sale and had paid tax on it.The loan explanation was further weakened by the absence of a promissory note or other loan documentation and by conflicting versions regarding how the money had allegedly been transferred, including whether it was paid by cheque or bank transfer.The High Court ultimately found the loan defence to be a “moonshine defence.”
GPA holder had to pay the owner’s share
Once the brother-in-law was treated as an agent rather than an owner, Section 218 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 became central. The provision requires an agent to pay the principal all sums received on the principal’s account.The court therefore held that the brother-in-law, having received the Rs 6.95 crore sale consideration on behalf of the four co-owners, was required to account for Mrs Mehta’s one-fourth share.That share amounted to Rs 1.73 crore. Since Rs 71.99 lakh had already been paid to her, the remaining amount payable was Rs 1,01,78,074.The court directed that 8% annual interest be paid on this outstanding amount from April 11, 2011, the date of the sale, until payment.