Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 3751
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vikram Aggarwal, J
Manish Raswant and another – Appellant
Versus
Kuldeep Raswant – Respondent
CR-7062-2025 (O&M) | CR-7061-2025 (O&M)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Sarju Puri
For the Respondents: Mr. Gagandeep Rana
The court reaffirmed that proprietary rights as established by sale deeds govern the exclusive and shared usage of property spaces among co-owners.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 - Permanent and mandatory injunction sought to restrain interference in possession of property - Both parties purchased different floors of a residential house, dispute over terrace usage. (Paras 1, 4, 10, 20)
(B) Injunction - Legal principles regarding possessory rights and usage based on property deeds - Both parties may have prior rights to access shared spaces, but exclusive possession is determined by the sale deeds. (Paras 11, 18, 20)
Facts of the case:
Two brothers dispute access to a terrace and toilet in a residential property, each claiming ownership based on separate purchase agreements.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the appellate decision and restricted interference in the ongoing possession while ensuring no alterations are made to the property pending trial resolution.
Issues: The main issue was the rightful usage of a terrace and toilet area as per respective property sale deeds.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the express terms of the sale deeds dictate the parties' rights with respect to usage, supporting the appellate court's injunction order against the petitioners-defendants.
Result: Revision petition disposed of with specific orders for restrained access.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute arises over usage of shared property. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. possession is determined by rights conferred in sale deeds. (Para 11 , 20) |
Manish Raswant and another …Petitioners V/s Kuldeep Raswant …Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Gagandeep Rana, for the caveator-respondent.
(in both petitions).
***
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J The afore titled revision petitions assail the order dated
08.07.2020 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn), Gurugram and order dated 08.09.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Court of Addl. District Judge, Gurugram. Since parties to the lis and properties in both revision petitions are the same, so are the impugned orders, the same are being decided by way of a common judgment.
2. Once again two real brothers are at loggerheads. However, this time, the dispute is not over a house or an agricultural land, but over a small portion of a terrace and a toilet on the second floor of a residential House bearing No.E-3/8 DLF, Phase-I, Gurugram.
3. The facts, as emanating from the revision petitions, are that three real brothers purchased different floors of the aforesaid house. Whereas, the respondent-plaintiff (Kuldeep Raswant) purchased the second floor vide registered sale deed dated 27.04.2000 (Annexure P-7), petitioner- defendant No.1 (Manish Raswant), who is the youngest out of the three brothers, purchased the first floor vide registered sale deed dated 01.05.2000 (Annexure P-6) and the eldest brother (Jai Deep Raswant) purchased the basement and ground vide registered sale deed dated 27.04.2000 (Annexure P-5). Each sale deed conferred 1/3rd share on the respective vendee.
4. The respondent-plaintiff (Kuldeep Raswant) instituted a suit (Annexure P-3) for permanent and mandatory injunction against the petitioners-defendants. He claimed to be in actual physical and peaceful possession of the second floor consisting of two bedrooms, kitchen, two toilets, drawing room, lobby, mumty and terrace whereas, the petitioner- defendant No.1 claimed to be in possession of the first floor consisting of two bedrooms, drawing/dinning lobby, two toilets, kitchen and stairs. It was claimed that since the day of purchase, the respondent-plaintiff had been exclusively using the terrace on the second floor (shown in yellow colour in the site plan). It was alleged that the petitioners-defendants had started interfering in his possession over the said terrace and toilet and had also attempted to take illegal possession of the same. It was also averred that the water tanks on the roof had a separate access by way of an iron stair case. Other details as regards business of the respondent-plaintiff and his having shifted to India etc. were given, which are not relevant for the purpose of decision of the instant revision petitions.
5. The suit was accompanied by an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 (for short the “CPC”) for the grant of ad interim injunction, restraining the petitioners-defendants from interfering or creating any obstruction, hindrance or infringement in the peaceful and exclusive possession and usage of the terrace along with the toilet.
6. The suit was opposed by way of a written statement (Annexure P-10) in which, a stand was taken that the site plan filed along with the plaint was wrong and that the first floor had a stair case, which started from the ground floor and reached to the first floor, opening into the living room and the lobby and then from the first floor to the second floor. It was averred that the entrance to the toilet on the second floor was from the lobby of the petitioners-defendants and that the same was being used by the petitioners-defendants right from the date of purchase.
7. It was also averred that as per the occupation certificate, the said construction of toilet etc. was not included and, therefore, the respondent-plaintiff could no
