Proven Written Agreement for Passage Must Be Honoured, Even if Not Fully Acted Upon or Alternative Passage Used: Punjab and Haryana High Court - 2025-05-07

Legal Awareness & Information.

High Court Upholds Sanctity of Written Agreement for Property Passage

Chandigarh : The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in the case of LAKHAN LAL @ LAKHMI ETC . vs BALBIR ETC. (RSA 3437 / 2016) , has reinforced the principle that a proven written agreement between parties regarding a right of passage must be honored, even if arguments are made that it was not fully acted upon or that an alternative passage (like Panchayat land) is also being used. Justice Arun Palli dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs, upholding the First Appellate Court's decision.

Case Background

The dispute originated when the plaintiffs, Lakhan Lal @ Lakhmi and others, filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction. They claimed to be co-owners in possession of a residential plot (Khasra No. 117, measuring 10 kanals 11 marlas) and alleged that the defendant, Balbir and others, had encroached upon their property by storing firewood and had no right, title, or interest in it.

The defendants contested the suit, asserting that an agreement was reached on February 10, 2003. According to this agreement (Ex.D1), a 3-feet wide passage on the western side of the plaintiffs' property (Plot No. 117) was designated to provide access for the defendants to their own property (Plot No. 116).

The Trial Court initially decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs. However, the First Appellate Court reversed this decision, relying on the aforementioned agreement (Ex.D1), and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. This led the plaintiffs to file a Regular Second Appeal (RSA) before the High Court.

Arguments Presented

Appellants (Original Plaintiffs): The counsel for the appellants argued that the defendant had admitted to using "Panchayat land" for passage. They further contended that the agreement dated February 10, 2003, was never acted upon by the parties. Therefore, they submitted that the First Appellate Court had erred in reversing the trial court's decree.

Respondents (Original Defendants): Conversely, the counsel for the respondents maintained that the agreement dated February 10, 2003, was a valid written document. They highlighted that it was signed not only by plaintiff No. 1 (Lakhan Lal @ Lakhmi) but also by more than ten elders of the village. The agreement, they argued, clearly provided the defendants with a necessary passage to facilitate the use of their premises.

High Court's Reasoning and Decision

Justice Arun Palli , after considering the submissions and perusing the case records, found no grounds to interfere with the First Appellate Court's judgment.

The Court observed: > "The agreement dated 10.02.2003 is an exhibited document, which has been proved. It is specifically recorded in agreement that the defendants have been given 3 feet passage out of western side of plot No.117 for the purpose of access to Plot No.116, which is owned by defendants."

The judgment emphasized the validity and significance of the written agreement: > "This document is signed by plaintiff No.1-Sh. Lakhan Lal. As already noticed, it is also signed by around 10 elders of the village. Such an agreement executed between the parties is required to be honoured."

Addressing the appellants' arguments, the Court stated: > "Merely because the defendants are also using some part of the Panchayat land for passage would not be sufficient to discard the agreement between the parties, which was reduced into writing."

Furthermore, on the point that the agreement was not acted upon, the Court held: > "The plaintiffs cannot claim that since the agreement has not been acted upon, hence, that should not be enforced. Once, the agreement has been proved, the same is required to be honoured."

Final Verdict

Concluding that no ground for interference was made out, the High Court dismissed the appeal. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of. The decision underscores the legal weight of formally executed agreements concerning property rights and access, asserting their enforceability once proven, irrespective of subsequent claims of non-implementation or alternative arrangements.