Terrace Rights Flow from Sale Deed, Not from Sentiment – Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Injunction

“When a Property is Divided Floor-Wise, One Must Rely on the Recital, Not on Relations” – In a vivid case of family discord turning legal, the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld an injunction protecting possession rights over a terrace and toilet on the second floor in a property dispute between real brothers, declaring that express terms in a registered sale deed must govern interim rights during trial.

Justice Vikram Aggarwal ruled: “The recitals clearly show that the respondent-plaintiff purchased the entire second floor with terrace rights… The first appellate court did not commit any illegality by injuncting the petitioners-defendants.”

The Court restrained the first-floor occupants from interfering with the second-floor owner’s peaceful possession of the terrace and toilet, directed removal of post-injunction constructions, and called upon both parties to maintain the status quo ante until final adjudication of the civil suit

“It Is Extremely Unfortunate That Two Real Brothers Are Fighting Over a Small Portion of a Terrace and a Toilet” – Court Deplores Familial Litigation Over Shared Space

The facts, as laid out in the judgment, read like a breakdown of domestic harmony. All three real brothers purchased different floors of House No. E-3/8, DLF Phase I, Gurugram by registered sale deeds in 2000, with each floorholder obtaining 1/3rd undivided share in the land. However, only the second-floor sale deed explicitly conferred terrace rights.

The dispute arose when Kuldeep Raswant, the second-floor owner, alleged that his younger brother Manish Raswant, who owned the first floor, began interfering in his exclusive use of the terrace and toilet and tried to forcibly claim possession. The trial court initially held that both parties had been using the toilet and denied injunction. On appeal, however, the Additional District Judge granted interim protection to the second-floor owner, leading to this revision before the High Court.

Justice Aggarwal expressed concern: “At this stage, one would have to fall back upon the recitals in the sale deed, which clearly show the terrace rights are with the owner of the second floor.”

“Express Clauses in Registered Sale Deeds Cannot Be Undermined by Possession Claims” – Court Rejects Argument That First-Floor Owner Automatically Gets Roof Rights

The core legal argument raised by the petitioners was that since the terrace is the roof of the first floor, it should be treated as part of the first-floor property. The Court rejected this line of reasoning, noting the absence of any clause in the first-floor sale deed granting terrace rights, while the second-floor deed expressly conferred such rights.

Citing the contrasting sale deed recitals, the Court quoted:

“Entire second floor with terrace right comprising of two bedrooms, two toilets and mumty…”
“Entire first floor comprising of two bedrooms, drawing/dining lobby, two toilets, kitchen and stairs…”

The High Court held: “There is no other recital as regards usage of the terrace on the second floor… The express recital must be given its due meaning, unless rebutted through trial.”

“No One Shall Raise Walls While the Court Decides Who Owns the Roof” – High Court Orders Removal of Illegal Constructions and Maintenance of Peace

During the pendency of litigation, the petitioners complained that the respondent had blocked access to the terrace by affixing a board and was raising a wall. The respondent claimed it was for security reasons, but the Court was not persuaded to allow any construction pending adjudication.

Justice Aggarwal directed: “Construction, if any, raised post passing of the order… shall be removed forthwith and status quo ante as regards construction shall be restored.”

He further ordered: “Neither party shall change the nature of the property by raising any construction or by demolishing any construction… Access to the water tanks through the outer iron staircase shall not be denied.”

“Possession, Even If Contested, Must Be Respected Till Trial Ends” – Interim Protection Not a Decision on Ownership, Court Clarifies

Upholding the appellate injunction, the High Court clarified that:“Possession rights during trial are not final determinations of title. The trial court shall independently decide the case uninfluenced by this Court’s observations.”

Recognizing the delicate nature of family disputes, the Court directed the trial court to expedite the suit so that prolonged litigation does not inflame tensions:

“The trial court is requested to make earnest effort to expeditiously decide the matter, keeping in view the nature of the dispute which has arisen amongst real brothers.”

The revision petitions were dismissed, and the appellate order dated 08.09.2025 was affirmed. The petitioners were restrained from interfering with the second-floor respondent’s possession of the terrace and toilet, and any construction raised after the appellate order was directed to be demolished.

The Court balanced interim protection with procedural caution, observing:

“Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case… The suit shall be decided uninfluenced by any observation made by this Court.

Date of Decision: 30 September 2025