What question did the Supreme Court answer in this case?

Whether partition of Hindu coparcenary property counts as a transfer under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 14(6) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

What did the Court finally decide?

Partition is not a transfer. It only separates pre-existing rights among coparceners. Therefore Section 14(6) posed no bar to the landlord’s eviction application.

Why is partition not a transfer in law?

Because each coparcener already had an interest in the whole property. Partition converts joint enjoyment into specific shares; no new title passes from one to another.

Which statutes were discussed?

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (s.53) and Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (s.14(1)(e) and s.14(6)).

V.N. Sarin v. Ajit Kumar Poplai

V.N. Sarin v. Ajit Kumar Poplai, AIR 1966 SC 432

Supreme Court of India 1966 Property / Rent Control Citation: AIR 1966 SC 432 Reading Time: ~7 min

Gulzar Hashmi

Nov 01, 2025

India

Quick Summary

The case asks a simple question: when a Hindu joint family divides property, is it a “transfer”? The landlord got the house on partition and sought eviction for personal need under the Delhi Rent Control Act. The tenant said, “No, you acquired it by transfer, so Section 14(6) blocks you.” The Supreme Court said partition is not a transfer. It only separates rights that already existed. So, Section 14(6) did not stop the eviction case.

Partition ≠ Transfer TPA s.53 • DRC s.14 Coparcenary logic

Issues

Is partition of coparcenary property a “transfer” within Section 53, Transfer of Property Act, 1882?
If not a transfer, does Section 14(6) of the Delhi Rent Control Act bar the landlord’s eviction claim?

Rules

Partition does not create new rights; it identifies and separates existing joint rights into specific shares.
In partition, no property is conveyed from one person to another; hence, it is not a “transfer” under TPA s.53.
Section 14(6) DRC restricts eviction if the landlord acquired by transfer recently; it does not apply to acquisitions by partition.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline

Tenancy: Appellant became tenant of a house owned by a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).

Partition: On partition, the suit premises fell to Respondent No. 1.

Eviction move: Respondent No. 1 sought eviction under DRC s.14(1)(e) for personal need.

Tenant’s defence: He claimed Respondent No. 1 acquired by “transfer,” so s.14(6) barred eviction.

High Court: Held that partition is not an “acquisition by transfer” under s.14(6).

Supreme Court: Tenant appealed by Special Leave; core issue—Is partition a transfer?

Arguments

Appellant (Tenant)

Respondent got the house by “transfer” after partition.
Section 14(6) DRC blocks fresh eviction soon after such acquisition.
So, eviction under s.14(1)(e) should not be allowed.

Respondent (Landlord)

Partition is not a transfer; it separates existing rights.
Section 14(6) does not apply; personal need eviction can proceed.
Title from partition stands on coparcenary law, not conveyance.

Judgment

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court. It held that partition of coparcenary property is not a transfer within TPA s.53. Therefore, s.14(6) DRC did not bar the landlord’s application under s.14(1)(e).

Partition distributes joint rights; it does not convey new rights.
Landlord’s eviction plea for personal use could proceed on merits.

Ratio

Partition under Hindu law is a mode of separation, not a transfer. Each coparcener already owns along with others; partition fixes and allots specific shares. No conveyance. Hence, “acquisition by transfer” in DRC s.14(6) does not include partition.

Why It Matters

Clarity on coparcenary partition and “transfer”.
Guides rent control disputes after family partitions.
Affirms doctrinal line: separation vs. conveyance.

Key Takeaways

Partition ≠ Transfer (no conveyance, only separation).
TPA s.53 “transfer” does not cover partition.
DRC s.14(6) bar does not apply to partition-based ownership.
Eviction for genuine personal need can proceed if other conditions are met.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “PART = PARTS, NOT PASS”

PARTition makes PARTS of what you already own.
It does NOT PASS property like a sale or gift.

3-Step Hook:

Ask: Did anyone convey new title? If no → likely not transfer.
Check: Were rights pre-existing and now separated? If yes → partition.
Apply: DRC s.14(6) only if there was a transfer.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Is partition of HUF property a “transfer” under TPA s.53 and DRC s.14(6)?

Rule

Partition separates joint rights; it does not convey property from one person to another.

Application

Landlord got the premises on partition; no conveyance occurred. Thus s.14(6) DRC did not bar the eviction claim.

Conclusion

Partition is not a transfer; appeal failed; eviction application maintainable.

Glossary

Coparcenary: Joint family unit where members share ownership in ancestral property.
Partition: Separation of joint rights into fixed shares for each coparcener.
Transfer: Conveyance of property from one person to another (e.g., sale, gift); not the same as partition.