A co-heir’s residence abroad does not, by itself, defeat her claim to access pending partition.

The plaintiff and defendant are sisters and daughters of the deceased owner of the suit property, House No. QP-34, Maurya Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi.

In a pending partition suit, the plaintiff sought interim relief alleging that the defendant obstructed her access and changed locks; the defendant denied that the plaintiff was in possession and maintained that she had lived in the property for years.

The plaintiff relied on an agreement which the Court recorded as indicating that she had the first-floor keys, while the defendant disputed compliance with the stated payment obligation.

The plaintiff’s earlier interim application had resulted in an order restraining creation of third-party interests, later vacated.

1. Whether the plaintiff was entitled, pending partition, to interim protection against obstruction of her access to the first floor of the suit property

2. Whether such access should be granted without conferring exclusive possession or disturbing the defendant’s ability to access and maintain the property

The application was made under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking interim injunctive relief.

The plaintiff relied on Kochkunju Nair v. Koshy Alexander, (1999) 3 SCC 482, in support of a co-owner’s right to joint possession and enjoyment pending partition.

The Court did not set out or expressly apply a detailed formulation of that precedent; it proceeded on the prima facie material before it, including the parties’ status as heirs and the indication that the plaintiff held keys to the first floor.

The Court held that the plaintiff’s residence in the United Kingdom did not, by itself, disentitle her from seeking access to the property inherited from her father.

Although the agreement’s purpose and the plaintiff’s alleged payment obligation were unclear, it prima facie indicated that the first-floor keys were with her.

The Court therefore considered access to that floor appropriate, while limiting the relief to prevent it from becoming exclusive possession or causing disturbance to the defendant.

The defendant’s remedy concerning the claimed monthly payment was left open to be pursued in accordance with law.

If a lock had been placed to prevent access, the defendant was directed to provide the plaintiff with a key; the defendant could retain a key for cleaning and maintenance.

The order did not confer exclusive possession or determine the parties’ shares, which remained to be demarcated, and it was not to be treated as an opinion on the merits.