Skip to main content
← back
Informative

Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Appeal in Family Property Dispute, Upholds Injunction in Favour of Plaintiff Kulwant Singh.

Update / Judgement Date

12 Oct 2025

Source

WCP News Bulletin

Author

Sakshi Bhardwaj — WCP Legal Desk

Reading Time

3 min read

Civil LawOther Legal Matters
Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Appeal in Family Property Dispute, Upholds Injunction in Favour of Plaintiff Kulwant Singh.
WCP News Bulletin
Headnote:

The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the second appeal filed by the legal representatives of the deceased appellant Narinder Mohan Puri, affirming the concurrent findings of the Trial and First Appellate Courts in a family property dispute. The case involved ancestral properties situated at Railway Road, Ambala City, where both parties were found to be co-sharers in possession of separate portions. The Court upheld that the defendants were entitled to open a door/aperture for access but could not interfere with the plaintiff’s possession. Finding no perversity or illegality in the lower court judgments, the High Court held that no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the appeal.


Background:

• Appellants: Smt. Paramjit Puri & Others (LRs of deceased appellant Narinder Mohan Puri)

• Respondents: Sh. Manmohan Puri & Others

• Property: Joint ancestral properties – House/Shops Nos. 971/4, 972/4, 973/4, and 982/4, Railway Road, Ambala City

• Issue: Dispute over possession and right to make structural alterations/open access between co-sharers

• Trial Court Judgment: 14 May 1998 – Suit partly decreed, restraining interference but permitting limited construction rights

• First Appellate Court Judgment: 07 November 1998 – Appeal dismissed, lower court findings affirmed

• High Court Proceedings: RSA No. 373 of 1999 (O&M) decided on 13 October 2025 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta


Appellant’s Contentions:
  1. The properties were joint family properties, and the defendants had no right to alter or open access without consent.
  2. The lower courts erred in permitting the defendants to open an aperture/door.
  3. The findings were perverse and contrary to the evidence on record.


Respondent’s Contentions:
  1. The parties were co-sharers, each in possession of separate portions.
  2. Opening of a door/aperture was necessary to access their portion of property No. 982/4.
  3. No interference was made in the plaintiff’s possession.


Court’s Findings:
  1. Both parties were co-sharers in the ancestral property.
  2. The plaintiff possessed properties Nos. 971/4 and part of 982/4, while the defendants possessed Nos. 972/4, 973/4, and the remaining part of 982/4.
  3. The defendants were entitled to open an aperture/door from 972/4 to their part of 982/4.
  4. There was no illegality or perversity in the findings of the lower courts.
  5. No substantial question of law arose for consideration under Section 100 CPC.


Decision:

• Second Appeal dismissed.

• Concurrent findings of Trial and First Appellate Courts upheld.

• Parties to bear their own costs.


Legal Provisions Discussed:

• Section 100, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Second Appeal jurisdiction)

• Principles of co-sharers’ possession and rights in joint family property


Case Title: Mohinder Singh v. Kulwant Singh

Case No.: RSA-4683-2000 (O&M)

Court: High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta