Delhi Court Flags Judicial Delay in 26-Year-Old Family Property Dispute

The judge observed it was the "oldest pending suit" before it, arising from a deeply painful dispute among close family members, and such cases reminded the court "that behind every case file lies a personal story; of relationships strained and time irreversibly lost."

"A solemn reminder of how long, exhausting, and procedurally burdensome the path to justice can be."

The judge was hearing a suit filed by plaintiff Ashok Kumar Jerath against the defendants, including his father, brother, sister-in-law and two sisters, seeking a declaration that some property transfers made by his father were null and void.

The plea sought other reliefs, including a permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of his house in south Delhi's Greater Kailash. In its judgment dated May 20, the court said the plaintiffs (Ashok and his legal representatives) failed to establish that he was exclusively entitled to the transferred properties.

"The plaintiff's side is only found entitled to the relief that defendants are restrained by way of injunction, from unlawfully disturbing the possession of legal representatives of the plaintiff over property in Greater Kailash II."

The verdict added, "Tragically, the plaintiff who filed this suit and most of the defendants against whom this suit was originally filed in 1999 have since passed away. This case stands as a legal chronicle that has outlived its protagonists, and the matter serves as a solemn reminder of how long, exhausting, and procedurally burdensome the path to justice can be." The judge said when a matter took 26 years to reach a resolution, the judicial system, including the court, must shoulder a share of the blame and responsibility.

"Accordingly, this court acknowledges the protracted journey and the emotional toll it must have taken on all involved the brothers, sisters, nieces, and nephews," the judge added. This court expressed hope that the judgment would serve as a closure to all sides, besides being a reminder of the need for "intra-family reconciliation" before taking legal recourse.

"While no judgment can undo the past, this court is duty-bound to deliver legal closure and record the truth. It is sincerely hoped that this decision may bring some peace to those left behind and serve as a reflection of the human cost of unresolved familial conflicts," she said.

The judge said that while emotions ran high in the case, it had looked strictly at it from a legal perspective. "Sentiments, however strong, cannot substitute for proof and affection or a misplaced sense of sympathy cannot overwrite the law. Let this case be a reminder of the importance of the timely resolution of family disputes," she said.

The court said its decision might render "one son and his family" a "lion's share of the father's property" whereas the other could be deprived of all of his father's assets. She said that civil rights had to be based on cogent evidence, established legal principles and procedural rigour. "Sentiments, however strong, cannot substitute for proof and affection, or a misplaced sense of sympathy cannot overwrite the law," the judge added.