{"id":357349,"date":"2025-08-22T09:30:54","date_gmt":"2025-08-22T04:00:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=357349"},"modified":"2025-08-23T16:20:55","modified_gmt":"2025-08-23T10:50:55","slug":"builders-agreement-cant-modify-family-settlement-share-del-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/22\/builders-agreement-cant-modify-family-settlement-share-del-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"Share apportioned by a Family Settlement Agreement cannot be modified by Builder\u2019s Agreement: Delhi High Court"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Delhi High Court:<\/span> In an appeal filed under Sections 96<\/a> and 151<\/a> read with Order 41 Rule 1<\/a> of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a> against the order dated 4-10-2024 (impugned order) directing the Appellants to handover possession of one-half of the fourth floor of the suit property to the Respondents and paying mesne profits to the tune of Rs. 48,000 per month along with 6 per cent per annum interest, the Division Bench of Anil Kshetarpal*<\/span> and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ, upheld the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.<\/p>\n

The Court further stated that the shares of family members in a suit property apportioned by a family settlement agreement, cannot be modified by a builders’ agreement.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

In the instant case, the suit property was divided between a late X (50 per cent share), Appellant 1 (25 per cent share) and Appellant 2 (25 per cent share). A family settlement dated 27-11-2012 was entered into between the Appellants (as the First Party) and the late X (as the Second Party) wherein the parties had agreed that the suit property would be demolished and constructed anew by a builder. Pursuant to this, a builder’s agreement was signed between the Appellants and late X (collectively as the First Party) and the builder (as the Second Party).<\/p>\n

Once the building was constructed and possession was handed over, the Respondents had filed for partition of suit property in accordance with the terms of the family settlement.<\/p>\n

The Appellants had contended that the builder’s agreement acknowledging the share of the Appellants in contradiction to the share enumerated under the family settlement amounted to novation of the family settlement which thereafter, stood superseded. Furthermore, the family settlement required registration as it amounted to relinquishment or creation of a right in an immovable property worth Rs.100 or more.<\/p>\n

Per contra, the Respondents had contended that the Appellants had trespassed on some part of the fourth floor of the suit property, deprived the Respondents of the complete possession of the said floor, and caused such nuisance that a tenant inducted by them for the portion had left.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law and Decision<\/h3>\n

The Court noted that the family settlement was a memorandum through which the second and fourth floors of the proposed construction, along with the roof rights fell to the share of late X; whereas the first floor fell to the share of the Appellants. The third floor was agreed to be given to the builder or his nominee. The Court opined that such an agreement merely specified a different manner of enjoyment of property and no new right was sought to be created or extinguished and therefore the agreement did not require registration.<\/p>\n

The Court stated that once the respective shares of the family members in a suit property were delineated by a family settlement, the builder’s agreement would not result in modification or novation.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that Section 62<\/a> of the Contract Act, 1872<\/a> which regulated modification, novation and alteration of a contract requires the parties to substitute a fresh contract with the intent of substituting a previous contract with a new contract. In the instant case, the memorandum of family settlement delineated the rights, title and interest of each family which were in no way modified by the builder’s agreement. Furthermore, the memorandum of family settlement did not create any title, rights or interest in the suit property for the first time. Hence, it was not required to be registered.<\/p>\n

The Court further held that the impugned order directing the appellants to pay mesne profits to the tune of Rs. 48,000 with 6 per cent per annum interest from date of institution of suit till delivery of vacant possession of fourth floor, was valid and did not merit any interference. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.<\/p>\n

[Suman Singh Virk v. Deepika Prashar, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5492<\/a>, decided on 18-8-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n

Judgement authored by: Justice Anil Kshetarpal<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

For the Appellant:<\/span> Tanmaya Mehta, Anirudh Bhatia, Shreya Sethi, Advocates<\/p>\n

For the Respondent:<\/span> Sanjay Gupta, Ateev Mathur, Anmol Sharma, Advocates<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“Once, by virtue of the Memorandum of Family Settlement, the respective shares of the family members were identified, the Builders’ Agreement, which is essentially an agreement to construct the building, will not result in its modification or novation.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":357356,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[51864,50100,2543,75265,83730,87679,45658,31853,87680],"class_list":["post-357349","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-builder-agreement","tag-contract-act-1872","tag-Delhi_High_Court","tag-justice-anil-kshetarpal","tag-justice-harish-vaidyanathan-shankar","tag-memorandum-of-family-settlement","tag-novation-of-contract","tag-partition","tag-share-modification-under-family-settlement"],"yoast_head":"\nBuilder's agreement can't modify family settlement share | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Delhi High Court held that a builders' agreement cannot modify family settlement share of family members given under memorandum of family settlement.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/22\/builders-agreement-cant-modify-family-settlement-share-del-hc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Share apportioned by a Family Settlement Agreement cannot be modified by Builder\u2019s Agreement: Delhi High Court\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court held that a builders' agreement cannot modify family settlement share of family members given under memorandum of family settlement.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/22\/builders-agreement-cant-modify-family-settlement-share-del-hc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-08-22T04:00:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-08-23T10:50:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/builders-agreement-cant-modify-family-settlement.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Share apportioned by a Family Settlement Agreement cannot be modified by Builder\u2019s Agreement: Delhi High Court\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/22\/builders-agreement-cant-modify-family-settlement-share-del-hc\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/22\/builders-agreement-cant-modify-family-settlement-share-del-hc\/\",\"name\":\"Builder's agreement can't modify family settlement share | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/22\/builders-agreement-cant-modify-family-settlement-share-del-hc\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/22\/builders-agreement-cant-modify-family-settlement-share-del-hc\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/builders-agreement-cant-modify-family-settlement.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-08-22T04:00:54+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-08-23T10:50:55+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Delhi High Court held that a builders' agreement cannot modify family settlement share of family members given under memorandum of family settlement.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/22\/builders-agreement-cant-modify-family-settlement-share-del-hc\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/22\/builders-agreement-cant-modify-family-settlement-share-del-hc\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/22\/builders-agreement-cant-modify-family-settlement-share-del-hc\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/builders-agreement-cant-modify-family-settlement.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/builders-agreement-cant-modify-family-settlement.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"builder's agreement can't modify family settlement\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/22\/builders-agreement-cant-modify-family-settlement-share-del-hc\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Share apportioned by a Family Settlement Agreement cannot be modified by Builder\u2019s Agreement: Delhi High Court\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Builder's agreement can't modify family settlement share | SCC Times","description":"Delhi High Court held that a builders' agreement cannot modify family settlement share of family members given under memorandum of family settlement.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/22\/builders-agreement-cant-modify-family-settlement-share-del-hc\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Share apportioned by a Family Settlement Agreement cannot be modified by Builder\u2019s Agreement: Delhi High Court","og_description":"Delhi High Court held that a builders' agreement cannot modify family settlement share of family members given under memorandum of family settlement.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/22\/builders-agreement-cant-modify-family-settlement-share-del-hc\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-08-22T04:00:54+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-08-23T10:50:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/builders-agreement-cant-modify-family-settlement.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Share apportioned by a Family Settlement Agreement cannot be modified by Builder\u2019s Agreement: Delhi High Court","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/22\/builders-agreement-cant-modify-family-settlement-share-del-hc\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/22\/builders-agreement-cant-modify-family-settlement-share-del-hc\/","name":"Builder's agreement can't modify family settlement share | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/22\/builders-agreement-cant-modify-family-settlement-share-del-hc\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/22\/builders-agreement-cant-modify-family-settlement-share-del-hc\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/builders-agreement-cant-modify-family-settlement.webp","datePublished":"2025-08-22T04:00:54+00:00","dateModified":"2025-08-23T10:50:55+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Delhi High Court held that a builders' agreement cannot modify family settlement share of family members given under memorandum of family settlement.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/22\/builders-agreement-cant-modify-family-settlement-share-del-hc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/22\/builders-agreement-cant-modify-family-settlement-share-del-hc\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/22\/builders-agreement-cant-modify-family-settlement-share-del-hc\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/builders-agreement-cant-modify-family-settlement.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/builders-agreement-cant-modify-family-settlement.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"builder's agreement can't modify family settlement"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/22\/builders-agreement-cant-modify-family-settlement-share-del-hc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Share apportioned by a Family Settlement Agreement cannot be modified by Builder\u2019s Agreement: Delhi High Court"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/builders-agreement-cant-modify-family-settlement.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":363493,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/11\/relinquishing-property-rights-is-not-gift-under-stamp-act-del-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":357349,"position":0},"title":"Sisters relinquishing rights of co-owned property in brother\u2019s favour not gift under Stamp Act: Delhi High Court","author":"Editor","date":"October 11, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe sisters executed the Relinquishment Deeds (\u2018RD\u2019) to release their share in favour of their brother, and there was no economic consideration exchanged at the time of the execution. All the RDs were basically acknowledging the bequest made by the father in favour of his son.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"relinquishing property rights is not gift","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/relinquishing-property-rights-is-not-gift.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/relinquishing-property-rights-is-not-gift.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/relinquishing-property-rights-is-not-gift.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/relinquishing-property-rights-is-not-gift.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":367338,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/21\/delhi-hc-on-requirement-of-mandatory-hearing-of-public-servant-under-lokpal-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":357349,"position":1},"title":"‘Hearing accused public servant before directing investigation mandatory under Sec. 20 of Lokpal Act’: Delhi HC","author":"Editor","date":"November 21, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe language employed in Section 20(3) of the Lokpal Act is peremptory and admits of no discretion. The legislative intent is that the prima facie satisfaction necessary for directing an investigation under the Act must be reached only after considering the explanation of the concerned public servant.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"mandatory hearing of public officer","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/mandatory-hearing-of-public-officer.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/mandatory-hearing-of-public-officer.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/mandatory-hearing-of-public-officer.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/mandatory-hearing-of-public-officer.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":365192,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/30\/apathy-towards-aged-in-laws-amounts-to-cruelty-by-wife-del-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":357349,"position":2},"title":"Apathy towards aged in-laws, prolonged denial of intimacy and false complaints against husband amounts to cruelty: Delhi HC","author":"Editor","date":"October 30, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cSustained neglect of marital obligations, coupled with acts designed to exacerbate discord, eroded the very foundation of the matrimonial bond.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Apathy towards aged-in laws","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Apathy-towards-aged-in-laws.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Apathy-towards-aged-in-laws.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Apathy-towards-aged-in-laws.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Apathy-towards-aged-in-laws.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":368585,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/03\/delhi-high-court-customary-divorce-cogent-evidence-second-marriage-held-void\/","url_meta":{"origin":357349,"position":3},"title":"Customary Divorce to be proved with cogent evidence; Delhi HC holds Second Marriage void after woman fails to prove Customary Divorce from Prior Marriage","author":"Ritu","date":"December 3, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Section 29(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 protects only valid customary divorces, and in the present case the evidence was insufficient in law to prove either the existence of such a custom in the community or the factum of her own divorce.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Customary Divorce","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Customary-Divorce.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Customary-Divorce.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Customary-Divorce.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Customary-Divorce.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":371239,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/30\/del-hc-appointment-of-sebi-adjudicating-office-admin-not-quasi-judicial-order\/","url_meta":{"origin":357349,"position":4},"title":"Delhi High Court: Appointment of SEBI Adjudicating Officer is administrative; Does not require a prior, reasoned recorded opinion","author":"Prarthana Gupta","date":"December 30, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cFormation of opinion under Rule 3 of Securities and Exchange Board of India Adjudication Rules need not be expressly recorded at pre-notice stage.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"appointment of SEBI adjudicating office","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/appointment-of-SEBI-adjudicating-office.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/appointment-of-SEBI-adjudicating-office.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/appointment-of-SEBI-adjudicating-office.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/appointment-of-SEBI-adjudicating-office.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":371913,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/07\/del-hc-order-vii-rule-11-partition-suit-cannot-be-rejected\/","url_meta":{"origin":357349,"position":5},"title":"Partition suit pleading acquisition from joint family funds cannot be rejected at threshold, must go to trial: Delhi High Court","author":"Ritu","date":"January 7, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe cause of action in a suit for partition is of a recurring nature and continues so long as the joint status subsists, crystallising only upon refusal of a demand for partition.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Partition suit cannot be rejected","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Partition-suit-cannot-be-rejected.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Partition-suit-cannot-be-rejected.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Partition-suit-cannot-be-rejected.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Partition-suit-cannot-be-rejected.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/357349","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=357349"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/357349\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/357356"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=357349"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=357349"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=357349"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}