Brother-in-law sold 26 bigha land using GPA for Rs 6.95 crore; didn't pay full share to sister-in-law; Delhi HC orders him to pay Rs 2.27 crore

A recent ruling by the Delhi High Court judgement shows how property and money can shift family dynamics, which is exactly what happened between Mrs Mehta and her brother-in-law (her husband’s brother).

Mrs Mehta and her three sisters-in-law jointly owned a large piece of land in Delhi, each holding 1/4th share. Mrs Mehta entrusted her brother-in-law with a general power of attorney (GPA) to manage the land. Instead of using it properly, the brother-in-law misused the GPA to sell the land for Rs 6.95 crore, giving Rs 72 lakh each to Mrs Mehta and her three sisters-in-law (his sisters) while pocketing the rest. This meant along with Mrs Mehta’s, all her sisters-in-law received roughly Rs 1.01 crore less than what they were entitled to (1/4 of 6.95 crore minus 72 lakh).

To resolve this issue, one of the sisters-in-law filed a police report at Lajpat Nagar PS, and Mrs Mehta took the matter to court. This article discusses the Delhi High Court case and how Mrs Mehta’s daughters successfully reclaimed her rightful share (Rs 1.01 crore with 8% interest).


Also read: Wife living in London gives POA to family friend to manage his Vadodara property, friend gifts it to son and daughter-in-law; husband files case and wins in Gujarat HC

What happened with this 26 bigha land in Najafgarh?

Briefly put, on March 29, 1985, Mrs Mehta and her three sisters-in-law (Nirmal, Renu and Bina) purchased 26 bighas of land in Najafgarh, New Delhi from Mr Jagat (also known as Roshan) via a registered sale deed. The mutation of this land was done, and it was recorded that Mrs Mehta had 1/4th undivided share in this land.

On the same date, Mrs Mehta executed a notarised general power of attorney (GPA) in favour of his brother-in-law since he lived in Delhi and she at that time lived in Siliguri, West Bengal. This GPA, registered in Siliguri, had a clause permitting her brother-in-law to gift the property to anybody he wished.

However, in 2011, Mrs Mehta’s three sisters-in-law (Nirmal, Renu and Bina) in their own capacity and her brother-in-law using her GPA sold this 26 bigha land in Nagafgarh for Rs 6.95 crore to a public limited company via a registered sale deed dated April 11, 2011.

However, he paid only Rs 71.99 lakh to Mrs Mehta in April 2012. When asked about it, Mrs Mehta learnt for the first time that the 26 bigha Najafgarh land was sold by him and this Rs 71.99 lakh represented her share. At this point, Mrs Mehta had no idea that the land was sold for Rs 6.95 crore and her share is actually Rs 1.73 crore (1/4th). So her brother-in-law transferred her Rs 71.99 lakh, which is about Rs 1.01 crore short.

That is how the dispute started, which Mrs Mehta’s daughters had to take all the way to the Delhi High Court after Mrs Mehta died intestate (without creating a Will) on December 25, 2013.

Ultimately, after a long fight, on August 31, 2026, Mrs Mehta’s daughters won the case in Delhi High Court. One of her daughters lives in Asharam Para, Siliguri, and another in Punjabi Para, Siliguri and the third in Canada. All her daughters are now married.

Advocates Vikas Arora, Ms. Rashi Priya, and Vansh Arora represented the daughters before the Delhi High Court.

Also read: Uncle opposed claim to grandfather’s 12-acre land after father’s name was removed; Supreme Court gives relief to children

Why did Mrs Mehta's daughters win the case in Delhi High Court?

Adnan Siddiqui, Partner at King Stubb and Kasiva said to ET Wealth Online: The Delhi Court's reasoning rested almost entirely on the brother-in-law's own paper trail namely the registered general power of attorney (GPA) and the sale deed. These registered documents showed that Mrs Mehta and the other sisters-in-law were all "Vendors" and "absolute owners/bhumidars" of the said Najafgarh land.

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 Delhi High Court also rejected the brother-in-law's argument about the GPA including a clause saying "power to gift". On the basis of this power to gift clause embedded in the GPA, he claimed that the land's ownership transferred to him.

Citing the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2012), the Delhi High Court reiterated that a GPA, however broadly worded, is a document of agency, not a conveyance; it authorises a person to act on the owner's behalf, it does not make him the owner.

Once this aspect about the GPA was proved it meant the brother-in-law remained legally bound, as an agent, to hand over the entire sale proceeds attributable to Mrs Mehta's one-fourth share (Rs 1.73 crore) under Section 218 of the Contract Act, an agent must pay his principal every rupee received on her account. However, the court found that he had paid only Rs 72 lakh and pocketed the rest.

What sealed the case, though, was his own conduct. He tried to argue that the Rs 72 lakh sent to Mehta was actually a friendly, interest-free loan she was meant to repay not her share of the sale money.

But in a written reply he had earlier filed before the Lajpat Nagar police station (responding to a complaint by another sister-in-law,), he admitted depositing the identical sum of Rs 72 lakh into the accounts of all three sisters-in-law around the same time, explicitly stating that it was not paid "out of any obligation" with no mention of any loan at all.

Mrs Mehta had also declared the amount in her income tax return as long-term capital gains from the sale, and paid tax on it directly contradicting her brother-in-law's "loan" story. Siddiqui says that with no promissory note, no loan documentation, and even conflicting versions of how the money was supposedly transferred (cheque versus bank transfer), the Delhi High Court found the loan defence to be, in its words, a "moonshine defence."

Also read: Grandson claims share in late grandfather’s 75-bigha land and challenges sale by father; Rajasthan HC rejects his claim for this reason

Delhi High Court discussion

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna of Delhi High Court heard this case.

Brother-in-law’s claim that he and his wife purchased the Najafgarh land is rejected since sale deed mentions otherwise

The Delhi High Court observed that the sale deed clearly recorded Mrs Mehta and her sisters-in-law - Nirmal, Renu and Bina - as "absolute owner/bhumidar" and the 26 bigha land in Najafgarh was their self-acquired property. The sale deed also recorded that the brother-in-law executed the sale deed in his capacity as a GPA holder.

When asked about this, the brother-in-law tried to distract the high court by contending that this land was purchased by him and his wife from their own funds, and that the names of Mrs Mehta and her three sisters-in-law(s) were added merely for the sake of convenience.

The Delhi High Court said that a registered instrument speaks for itself, and general and unsubstantiated averments, contrary to what’s reported in the registered Sale Deed, is not admissible under law. So the brother-in-law’s arguments were rejected.

The high court also said that even if they accept the brother-in-law’s contentions, he had not provided any evidence to substantiate this claim.

The Delhi High Court also analysed his income tax return (ITR) and could not see the Rs 6.95 crore capital gains being declared, and so the brother-in-law lost on this ground as well.

The Delhi High 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.”

A General Power of Attorney is not an instrument of transfer of right in a property

The Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Another, (2012) 1 SCC 656, has categorically held that transactions of the nature of "GPA sales" do not convey title and do not amount to transfer.

Thus, the Delhi High Court ruled that the two General Powers of Attorney merely empowered him (brother-in-law) to look after, manage and supervise the undivided share of Mrs Mehta, and to sell, transfer or gift the same 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.”

Since brother-in-law acted as an agent using the GPA, he has to pay back the money to his sister-in-law(s) who owns the land

The Delhi High Court said that under Section 218 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which provides that an agent is bound to pay to his principal all sums received on his account. So in this case, the brother-in-law acted as an agent (pursuant to the GPA) and Mrs Mehta became the principal, so by this logic, the brother-in-law is bound to give back the money he got from selling the land.

The Delhi High Court said that since the brother-in-law got Rs 6.95 crore on behalf of the four sister-in-laws, he is under a statutory obligation to pay Mrs Mehta her 1/4th share (Rs 1.73 crore). Now since he has paid her Rs 71.99 lakh already, so he must pay the balance amount of Rs 1.01 crore. The time period of the interest is from April 11, 2011 (the day the sale happened) till the day it is paid.

If we take the date of September 2, 2026, the interest part comes to Rs 1.25 crore and principal is Rs 1.01 crore, so total Rs 2.27 crore.

• Principal: Rs 1,01,78,074
• Period: 5,623 days
• Interest @ 8% p.a.: Rs 1.25 crore (1,25,43,849 approximately)
• Principal + interest: Rs 2.27 crore (2,27,21,923 approximately)