The Punjab & Haryana High Court has criticized the trend of rising property disputes after death of family members stating that though price of property have risen, values in society have declined.

The Court was considering a Criminal Revision Petition against the order of the Additional Civil Judge vide which the Suit filed by Respondents No. 1 to 3/ Plaintiffs under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for restoration of possession was decreed.

The single judge bench of Justice Vikram Aggarwal observed, "In the good old times, familial bonds were strong. The young members of the family had enormous respect for the elders and the elders too were fair and caring. In most families, property disputes were looked down upon especially when disputes erupted between blood relations and close family members. With time, with the rise in the prices of property, there has been a decline in values. Murders take place over property disputes and civil litigation has become the order of the day. No doubt, such litigation and disputes have existed since times immemorial but over the last quarter of a Century, such disputes have witnessed a sharp increase."

The Petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Shailendra Jain while Respondent was represented by Advocate Akshay Jindal.

Facts of the Case

In the present case, the dispute was between one whole family consisting of parents, one son the family of a pre-deceased son and two daughters on one side and the family of another pre-deceased son on the other. The clash was between wife and children of the murdered son (Plaintiffs in the case) and his parents out of which a string of litigation ensued. The Plaintiffs had filed a Suit under Section 6 of the 1963 Act for restoration of possession of portion of residential house. Consequential relief of Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants from alienating and transferring the Possession of the disputed property was also sought. It was alleged that the Defendant was holding joint family properties out of which, some properties had been acquired by the State of Haryana. After the death of son, relations between the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 became strained as a result of which litigation ensued.

In 2021, the Defendants dispossessed the Plaintiffs from the disputed property by breaking open the locks. They were alleged to have taken away the household articles and the illegal possession of the same. Complaints were preferred to the Police and other authorities but no action was taken. The Police, instead of taking action against the Defendants, challaned Plaintiff No.1 under Section 107/150 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, since no further action was taken on the complaints, the Suit was filed which was opposed by the Defendants. Defendants No.1 to 4 filed a Joint Written Statement. Certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, the suit being barred, the Plaintiffs having no cause of action etc. were raised.

The basic stand that was taken was that the Parents had constructed the said houses out of their love and affection for their sons and gave equal shares to all their sons and daughters. It was alleged that after the death of one of their deceased son, his wife and son started harassing the other family members on one pretext or the other and forcibly encroached upon the other portion upon which two rooms had been constructed which were lying vacant.

It was also averred that during the lifetime of deceased son, the father had given equal share of ancestral property to all his sons and daughters. In a family meeting, it was decided that the possession of the disputed property would be handed over to one of the son. However, the Appeal filed by him against the judgment and decree was dismissed and immediately upon dismissal of the same, the Plaintiffs started demanding their share in the compensation amount and other properties and then filed the suit after having submitted a false complaint to the Police.

Senior Counsel for the Petitioners/ Defendants argued that the trial Court had erred in decreeing the suit. It referred to the site plan and the other documents on record which include various judgments and decrees passed in the litigation that ensued between the parties. Reference was also made to the cross-examination of the Plaintiff-Wife and it was pointed out that she had admitted in her cross-examination that the possession was taken over from her in August 2021 whereas in the Plaint, she had claimed that she had been dispossessed from the disputed property in September 2021. The Senior Counsel submitted that once the exact date of dispossession was not forthcoming and had in fact been concealed, the Suit could not have been decreed. It was submitted that for a Suit filed under Section 6 of the 1963 Act, two vital elements were required to be proved by the Plaintiffs which were the specific date till which the Plaintiffs were in possession and the specific and precise date of dispossession.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset pointed out that the one thing which emerges from all the litigations that ensued between the parties is that the Plaintiffs were in possession of the disputed property and the question before it for assessment is as to whether they were dispossessed or they had handed over possession voluntarily. It refused to accept the submission by the Defendants that an oral family settlement had been arrived at in 2021 pursuant to which the Defendants were handed over the possession but after the dismissal of Appeal they instituted the present suit for it believed that they were at

"This version seems to be totally unacceptable because if some family settlement had been arrived at, some writing must have been executed because parties were at logger heads for the last 15 years and nobody, under such circumstances, would be having faith on each other. It is extremely hard to accept that under such circumstances, the plaintiffs would hand over possession of the disputed property voluntarily to the defendants. Why the settlement was not reduced into writing has not been explained. Why the appeal was dismissed without there being any mention of the said settlement during the course of the appeal has also not been explained. The version of the defendants is completely oral and not supported by any evidence worth its name," the Court observed.

Noting that the cross-examination has to be considered as a whole and no part of it can be considered in isolation, the Court stated that it is a fact that dispossession was there.

"The matter was reported to the police as well. No doubt, the police gave a report (Ex. RX) that no forcible dispossession was there but that mere report cannot be accepted as a gospel truth because such a report is based upon the statements made by persons present at a particular place. It is not unknown that a widow and her two children would have less support as compared to the defendants who had been living in the area for a number of years and in any case, a lady without husband has less support as compared to others. The fact remains that the suit was instituted within a period of six months from the dispossession, be it August 2021 or September 2021. Under the circumstances, the specific date of dispossession would be comparatively irrelevant here and that too merely because in the cross-examination, the plaintiff had stated that possession had been taken over from her in August 2021. The argument is, therefore, devoid of merit and is rejected," the Court observed.

It was further of the view that the Plaintiffs not being the owners of the disputed property is also not relevant, for, it is the question of dispossession which is important in a Suit filed under Section 6 of the 1963 Act and the question of title would be irrelevant.

"I have gone through the judgments relied upon by both sides. The basic stress in the judgments relied upon by learned Senior counsel representing the petitioners is on the issue of the specific date of dispossession which, for, reasons mentioned in the preceding paragraphs would not apply to the facts of the present case because in any case, the civil suit was filed within a period of six months. Still further, the other judgments would also not come to the aid of the petitioners, for, they were given in the facts of each case which were completely different from the facts in the present case. I do not deem it essential to refer to those judgments in detail keeping in view the clear facts which have emerged in the present case from the evidence led by the parties," the Court observed.

Cause Title: Ram Sarup vs. Jaswinder Kaur and Others (2025:PHHC:033295)

Click here to read/ download Order












Punjab & Haryana High CourtJustice Vikram Aggarwal

Sheetal Joon