Short answer: On 5 October 2026 the Delhi High Court held that a daughter who lives and works in the United Kingdom is not shut out of her late father's house in Pitampura, Delhi, because she lives abroad. In a partition suit between two sisters, it barred the sister living in the house from obstructing her access to the first floor while the suit is pending, and directed that she be given a key whenever she comes to India. The order gives her no exclusive possession, because the shares are not yet divided.
Living in the UK Does Not Shut an Heir Out of Her Father's Delhi House, High Court Says
On 5 October 2026 the Delhi High Court held that a daughter who lives and works in the United Kingdom cannot be denied access to her late father's house in Pitampura on that ground alone. In a partition suit between two sisters, Justice Vinod Kumar restrained the sister who lives in the house from obstructing access to the first floor while the suit is pending, and directed her to hand over a key whenever her sister comes to India. The order gives the sister abroad no exclusive possession, because the shares are not yet divided.
The case
The order is in I.A. 6002/2026 in CS(OS) 424/2022, Meena Sambhi v. Leena Sambhi, CNR DLHC010276222022, on the original side of the Delhi High Court. Justice Vinod Kumar reserved it on 24 September 2026 and pronounced it on 5 October 2026. It runs to seven pages.
The two parties are sisters. The suit is for partition of a house in Maurya Enclave, Pitampura, that belonged to their father, who died on 29 May 2022 (paras 2 and 14). The application asked for an injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (para 1).
What each side said
The sister abroad. Her counsel said she lives and works in the United Kingdom, returned to the house on 8 March 2026, was kept waiting for hours before she was let in, and found locks on parts of the property. She filed a police complaint the same day (paras 3 and 4). She argued that a co-owner is entitled to joint possession until the property is partitioned by metes and bounds, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Kochkunju Nair v. Koshy Alexander, (1999) 3 SCC 482 (para 6).
The sister in the house. She said she has lived in the house since 1988, that her sister has been a permanent resident of the United Kingdom since 1997 and never held possession, and that she alone had paid for the upkeep (paras 7 to 9). She pointed out that an earlier interim order of 25 July 2022, barring third-party interests in the house, was vacated on 9 November 2022 because the process fee was not filed (para 10). She also relied on an undertaking by her sister to pay ₹20,000 a month from January 2023 and to stay on the first floor (para 8).
What the court held
The court found that the house belonged to the father and that the sister abroad claims as one of his legal heirs. It said: "The fact that the plaintiff is residing in the United Kingdom, by itself, cannot disentitle her from seeking access to the suit property" (para 14).
On the agreement between the sisters, the court noted that the defendant's counsel did not dispute it. The court could not tell from it what the ₹20,000 a month was for, but held that it showed, prima facie, that the keys of the first floor were with the sister abroad (paras 15 and 16).
The directions:
- The sister in the house may not obstruct or restrict access to the first floor while the suit is pending (para 17).
- If a lock was put on to keep her out, one key goes to the sister abroad whenever she comes to India. One key stays with the sister in the house for cleaning and maintenance (para 18).
- The dispute over the ₹20,000 a month is left to the sister in the house to pursue "as per law" (para 18).
- Access must be peaceful. The order confers no exclusive right or possession over any part of the house, because the shares are yet to be demarcated (para 19).
The court said nothing in the order is an opinion on the merits of the suit (para 21). The suit goes before the Joint Registrar on 27 October 2026 for admission and denial of documents (para 23).
What the order does not decide
It does not decide who owns what share. That is the partition suit. It does not give the sister abroad possession of the house or the ground floor. Access runs to the first floor, the floor the agreement placed her on. It does not decide whether the ₹20,000 a month is owed. The order is an interim one on one application, by a single judge, and it rests on the agreement in this record.
One detail in the order is inconsistent. It dates the sisters' agreement 14 June 2022 in para 8 and "14.05.222" in para 15. The order does not reconcile the two.
Why it matters if you inherit from abroad
The order puts a sentence on record that a co-heir abroad can point to: living outside India does not, by itself, cost you access to a house you inherited. It also shows what carried the day here. The court leaned on a written agreement that put the first-floor keys with the sister abroad, and it limited the access to that floor.
If you share an inherited house with a sibling in India, a written arrangement on who uses which floor, who holds keys and who pays for upkeep is the paper a court reads first. Our guides on co-heir deadlock over inherited property and inheriting property in India as an NRI set out the routes to partition and sale. In September we covered a Delhi High Court partition suit brought by an heir in the USA that turned on a family settlement, and in July the Supreme Court's ruling on heirs as tenants in common.
This page reports what the order says. It is not legal advice on your own property.
FAQ
What did the Delhi High Court decide on 5 October 2026 in Meena Sambhi v. Leena Sambhi? It restrained the sister living in their late father's Pitampura house from obstructing her sister's access to the first floor while their partition suit is pending, and directed that she be given a key whenever she comes to India. The sister seeking access lives and works in the United Kingdom.
Can a co-heir living abroad be denied access to an inherited house in India because she lives abroad? In this order the Delhi High Court said that residing in the United Kingdom, by itself, cannot disentitle the heir from seeking access to the property. It is an interim order in one partition suit and expresses no view on the merits.
Did the court give the heir abroad possession of the house? No. The order says it confers no exclusive right or possession over any part of the house, because the sisters' shares are yet to be demarcated. It covers access to the first floor only.
Why the first floor? The sisters had an agreement, not disputed by the defendant's counsel, under which the plaintiff agreed to pay ₹20,000 a month from January 2023 and took the keys of the first floor. The court read that as showing, prima facie, that the first-floor keys were with her.
What happens to the ₹20,000 a month? The court did not decide whether it is owed. It said the sister in the house has her remedy for it as per law.
What happens next in the suit? The suit is listed before the Joint Registrar on 27 October 2026 for admission and denial of documents.
66 MG Road newsdesk
Sources
- High Court of Delhi, Meena Sambhi v. Leena Sambhi, I.A. 6002/2026 in CS(OS) 424/2022, CNR DLHC010276222022, order of Vinod Kumar J pronounced 5 October 2026, seven pages, read in full on 11 October 2026: https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/75305102026IA60022026_165321.pdf
Information on this page is as on 2026-10-11. Rules, rates, deadlines and government portals change without notice, so verify against the official source before you act. This page is for information only. It is not tax or legal advice, and it is not a substitute for a qualified adviser who knows your position.