The Punjab & Haryana High Court has expressed concern over the increasing number of property disputes within families, especially following the demise of a family member. The Court noted that with the rise in property prices, there has been a significant decline in moral values, leading to an alarming surge in family conflicts and litigation.
Read also: Punjab Police Recruitment | Non-Disclosure of Pending FIRs Leads to Disqualification: High Court
Justice Vikram Aggarwal remarked:
"With time, with the rise in the prices of property, there has been a decline in values. Murders take place over property disputes, and civil litigation has become the order of the day."
The Court highlighted that while such disputes have existed for centuries, the last 25 years have witnessed a sharp increase in such conflicts. It further pointed out that many disputes do not arise while a person is alive, but surface immediately after their passing.
Read also: Key Legal Challenges Faced by Punjab Government Under Advocate General Gurminder Singh
The judgment referred to the proverb "Blood is Thicker Than Water", emphasizing that familial bonds should ideally be stronger than other relationships. However, the reality has been different, with family members engaging in prolonged legal battles over inheritance and property rights.
The Court nostalgically recalled that in earlier times, family ties were stronger, and younger generations held deep respect for their elders. It observed:
"In most families, property disputes were looked down upon, especially when conflicts arose between blood relations and close family members."
Read also: Gurminder Singh Steps Down as Punjab Advocate General After 18 Months
This changing trend has led to an increase in civil and even criminal cases involving property-related conflicts, with some cases even resulting in extreme violence.
The Case in Question
The High Court made these remarks while hearing a revision plea against an order passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), which had decreed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, for restoration of possession.
- The dispute involved the family of Ram Sarup and Surinder Kaur, who had three sons (Jagdeep, Swaran Singh, and Harjinder Pal) and two daughters (Paramjit Kaur and Manjeet Kaur).
- The plaintiffs, Jaswinder Kaur, Manpreet Kaur, and Amandeep Singh, were the wife and children of Harjinder Pal, who was murdered in 2009.
- Following Harjinder Pal’s demise, conflicts arose between his family and his parents, leading to prolonged litigation.
On September 3, 2021, the defendants allegedly forcibly dispossessed the plaintiffs from the disputed property by breaking open the locks. It was further alleged that they took household belongings and took illegal possession of the property. Complaints were filed with the police and other authorities, but no action was taken.
- The police instead filed a case against Plaintiff No.1 under Sections 107/150 of the CrPC.
- Left with no alternative, the plaintiffs moved the court seeking legal intervention.
The High Court upheld the trial court's judgment, stating:
"The learned trial Court examined the matter from all angles and returned a well-reasoned finding based upon correct appreciation of evidence. I have found nothing in the impugned judgment and decree which could have even prima facie led this Court to interfere in revisional jurisdiction."
The Court ruled that there was no jurisdictional error in the trial court's decision and, therefore, saw no reason to exercise its revisional powers under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Concluding that the plea lacked merit, the High Court dismissed the revision petition, reinforcing its stance on the increasing degradation of family values in the face of financial interests.
Mr. Shailendra Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Munish Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Akshay Jindal, Advocate and Mr. Bhavya Vats, Advocate for the respondents.
Title: Ram Sarup @ Sarup @ Ram Swaroop and Others v. Jaswinder Kaur and Others
