Co-Sharer Can’t Be Locked Out Just Because He Lives Abroad: Delhi High Court Upholds NRI’s Right to Access Joint Family Property

“Occasional Residence Doesn’t Defeat Possession – Status Quo Must Be Respected Till Partition is Decided”, Delhi High Court reaffirmed that the possessory rights of a co-owner cannot be denied merely because he resides abroad. Justice Subramonium Prasad held that “occasional residence does not extinguish possessory rights of a co-sharer,” especially when a status quo order regarding possession is in force. Allowing conditional access, the Court granted interim protection to the plaintiff, an elderly NRI, who was obstructed by his siblings from entering a portion of the joint family home during a visit to Delhi.

The Court was dealing with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff seeking an ex parte injunction to restrain the defendants from blocking his entry into a room in the family property which he had been using during his visits to India.

“Status Quo Order is Binding – Possessory Rights Can’t Be Denied on Technicalities”

The dispute concerns a family home located at A-23, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi, originally owned by Late Dwarka Nath Tara. The plaintiff, Deepak Tara, now 75 and residing in Sweden for over four decades, claimed a 1/7th share in the unpartitioned property and sought to retain access to a specific room on the ground floor — which he stated he used to occupy during visits.

A status quo order had been passed earlier by the Court on 11.02.2019, directing parties to maintain the existing state of possession and title. This order remained undisturbed.

Justice Prasad observed: “Status quo order continues to operate and plaintiff cannot be forcibly denied access to the portion earlier used by him.”
The Court was clear that despite the plaintiff’s foreign residence, his legal and possessory rights remained intact.

“Forgery of NOC to Mutate Property Strengthens Plaintiff’s Fears” – Criminal Conviction of Defendant Takes Centre Stage

The order gains deeper significance in light of the criminal background between the parties. Defendant No.4, Pradeep Tara, who claimed exclusive rights over the ground floor based on an alleged Will, was convicted in 2024 for forging a No Objection Certificate to mutate the entire property in his own name.

Quoting the trial court’s findings, Justice Prasad noted:
“The prosecution has successfully proved that the document was forged in two aspects — the signatures of the complainant and the stamps of the notary… the intention of the accused person is inherent from the fact that the said document was totally forged.”

The Court refused to allow a convicted party to assert exclusivity over the property at the interim stage, especially when the partition suit is pending.

“Living Abroad Doesn’t Disqualify a Co-Owner” – Court Recognizes Ongoing Possession Through Intermittent Use

The defendants tried to deny the plaintiff’s rights by contending that he had not been in continuous possession and had permanently settled in Sweden. But the Court dismissed this argument.

“Occasional residence does not extinguish possessory rights of a co-sharer, particularly when suit for partition is pending and status quo order is in force,” Justice Prasad declared, placing the legal burden back on the defendants who had tried to oust a co-owner on technical grounds.

The Court also noted that police complaints and kalandaras allegedly filed by the plaintiff’s mother against him did not weaken his claim. It said,
“This Court cannot shut its eyes to the fact that the mother was staying with the other brothers of the Plaintiff.”

“Possession Allowed With Safeguards – No Right to Sublet or Let Others Stay”

While the Court upheld the plaintiff’s right to access the property, it simultaneously imposed equitable safeguards to prevent misuse in his absence.

Justice Prasad took into account the practical risks of an absentee co-owner permitting third parties to stay.
“Plaintiff cannot permit any other person to use his room when he is not in Delhi. Only when the Plaintiff is in Delhi along with his wife and children, they can have access to the room.”

Importantly, the Court noted that the site plan revealed the room had an independent entry and attached toilet, ensuring no inconvenience to other occupants.

Thus, the plaintiff was permitted to access and use the red-marked room on the ground floor during his stay in India, without interference from his siblings — but was barred from allowing any other person to occupy it in his absence.

“Balance of Convenience Favours Co-Owner in Possession” – Injunction Granted With Conditions

Ultimately, the High Court upheld the principle that in a joint family property, no co-sharer can be forcibly dispossessed, and mere absence or overseas residence cannot justify denying access.

The application was disposed of with directions in favour of the plaintiff. The main partition suit remains pending and is now listed before the Joint Registrar on 24.02.2026 for further proceedings.

Date of Decision: 23 January 2026