Access Denied: Delhi High Court Steps In to Resolve Family Property Dispute

In a significant interim order, the Delhi High Court has intervened in a bitter property dispute emerging from a 1989 family will, ensuring that a plaintiff’s right to access his share of an ancestral home in Kailash Colony remains protected. The court’s directive comes as a direct response to allegations of physical obstruction at the property premises.

Tracing the Dispute: A House Divided

The case, Harsh Dewan v. Prem Kumar Chaudhary & Ors. , centers on the property at B-30, Kailash Colony, New Delhi. The plaintiff, Harsh Dewan, has approached the court seeking a formal partition of the property based on a Will dated March 19, 1989, executed by his late grandfather, Sh. Ishwar Das Choudhary.

According to the plaintiff, what should have been a peaceful transition of inheritance has devolved into a cycle of hostility. The core of the current dispute involves a critical passage/driveway that serves as the plaintiff's sole access point to his designated portion of the property. The plaintiff alleges that the family of Defendant No. 1 has engaged in a "deliberate course of conduct" to undermine his rights, which culminated in the installation of a steel gate blocking his ingress and egress to the property.

Arguments from the Pleadings

Counsel for the plaintiff argued that despite efforts to reach an amicable resolution and respect the wishes of the late testator, the defendants have continuously obstructed the peaceful enjoyment of the property. The primary grievance focused on the recently installed steel gate, which the plaintiff contends is an unjustified measure designed to deny him access to a driveway that abuts the public road.

The legal action is framed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, with the plaintiff seeking an urgent injunction to prevent the creation of third-party rights and to ensure that his access to the premises is restored and maintained.

The Court’s Reasoning and Intervention

Justice Mini Pushkarna, presiding over the matter, found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for interim relief. In granting the injunction, the court noted that the balance of convenience heavily favored the plaintiff and that failing to grant immediate relief would likely cause "irreparable loss and injury."

The court's decision underscores the judiciary's role in maintaining the status quo during the pendency of complex partition suits to prevent the deprivation of legitimate property rights.

Key Observations

The judgment features several critical remarks regarding the court's stance on the current obstruction:

• "The plaintiff’s sole access to his portion of the property in question is through an open passage/driveway, directly abutting the public road and not through any constructed portion of the defendant no. 1."
• "The plaintiff has shown a prima facie case in his favour. Further, the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff and an irreparable loss and injury shall be caused to the plaintiff in case the interim relief is not granted in his favour."
• "It is directed that the plaintiff’s access to his portion in the property in question, as well as the access of other family members/visitors of the plaintiff, shall not be obstructed by the defendants in any manner."
• "It is made clear that any unjustified denial of documents may lead to an order of costs against the concerned party."

The Road Ahead

The High Court has issued notice to the defendants, who have been granted four weeks to file their reply, with a subsequent two-week window for the plaintiff to file a rejoinder. By mandating that the access to the property remain unblocked, the court has provided immediate relief to the plaintiff. The case is currently listed for further proceedings before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) on April 17, 2026, and will return to the court on July 17, 2026, marking the next stage in this ongoing ancestral estate battle.

As this matter proceeds, it serves as a reminder of the judicial oversight applied in property disputes to prevent the unilateral infringement of co-owners' rights.