Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Appeal in Family Property Dispute, Upholds Findings on Joint Possession and Limited Injunction Relief
Case Name: Narinder Mohan Puri (deceased) through LRs v. Manmohan Puri and Others
Date of Judgment: October 13, 2025
Citation: RSA-373-1999
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a second appeal filed by the legal representatives of the late Narinder Mohan Puri, upholding concurrent findings of the lower courts in a family property dispute. Justice Deepak Gupta held that the plaintiff had failed to establish exclusive possession or demarcation of his claimed portion within the joint ancestral property, and that both sides were in occupation of distinct parts of the premises. The Court ruled that the defendants, being co-sharers, were entitled to make reasonable alterations and open an access from their portion of the property, as permitted by the lower courts.
Summary: The case involved a long-standing dispute between real brothers over ancestral property comprising house and shop units bearing Nos. 971/4, 972/4, 973/4, and 982/4 on Railway Road, Ambala City, inherited from their father, late Shri Kulwant Rai Puri. The plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from carrying out unauthorized construction or blocking passageways in the shared properties.
The defendants admitted the joint ownership but contended that the family had mutually divided the premises after their father’s death — assigning shop No. 971/4 to the plaintiff and Nos. 972/4 to 973/4 to the defendants for business purposes. They asserted that the plaintiff, while managing his portion, had started interfering with their lawful use and had occupied part of property No. 982/4 without any right.
The Trial Court partly decreed the suit, restraining the defendants from making unauthorized additions or alterations in the common property but allowing them to open gates or make changes in property No. 972/4 to access their portion of 982/4. The First Appellate Court upheld these findings on November 7, 1998, holding that the plaintiff’s pleadings were vague and unsupported by clear evidence of exclusive possession. It also observed that both parties were occupying distinct portions, with the plaintiff controlling properties 971/4 and part of 982/4, and the defendants holding 972/4, 973/4, and the remaining section of 982/4.
Justice Deepak Gupta affirmed these concurrent conclusions, noting that no substantial question of law arose. The Court observed that the evidence — limited to site plans and oral testimony — established joint possession, not partition, and that the lower courts’ direction permitting defendants to access their portion of 982/4 was justified.
Decision: The High Court found no perversity or illegality in the judgments of the lower courts and dismissed the second appeal as devoid of merit, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.