LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Tuesday, December 4, 2018

a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of the disputes relating to property rights between the private persons - No writ is maintainable. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of statutory authority is alleged. - Apex court held that writ is not maintainable for restoration of possession of property between private parteis and set aside the orders of Division Bench of High Court - Liberty is given to file civil suit

 a   regular   suit   is   the   appropriate   remedy   for settlement of the disputes relating to property rights between   the   private   persons - No writ is maintainable.   
The   remedy   under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of statutory authority is alleged. - Apex court held that writ is not maintainable for restoration of possession of property between private parteis and set aside the orders of Division Bench of High Court - Liberty is given to file civil suit

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.11759 OF 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 30465 of 2017)
Roshina T            ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Abdul Azeez K.T. & Ors.    ….Respondent(s)   
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment
and   order   dated   30.08.2017  passed   by   the   High
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Petition (C)
No. 15385/2017  whereby the Division Bench of the
1
High   Court   allowed   the   writ   petition   filed   by
respondent No.1 herein and directed the appellant
herein, by issuing a writ of mandamus, to restore
the possession of the flat in question to respondent
No.1 herein.
3. Facts   of   the   case   lie   in   a   narrow   compass.
They,   however,   need   mention   in   brief  infra  to
appreciate   the   short   question   involved   in   this
appeal.
4. The   dispute   essentially   relates   to   the
possession of a flat bearing No. 3D, 3rd  floor located
in   building   known   as   Royal   Court­Block   IV   at
Kozhikode (hereinafter referred to as “the flat”) and
is   between   the   appellant   and   respondent   No.   1
herein.
5. Respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition being
W.P.(C) No. 15385 of 2017 before the High Court of
Kerala   against   the   appellant   herein   and   other
2
respondents(local police authorities) seeking therein
a relief of restoration of his possession over the flat
in   question.   The   appellant   contested   the   writ
petition   on   various   factual   and   legal   grounds
including   raising   an   objection   about   the
maintainability of the writ petition and the reliefs
claimed therein.
6. By   impugned   order,   the   Division   Bench
allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant
(respondent No. 5 in the writ petition) to restore the
possession of the flat in question to respondent No.
1 herein (writ petitioner in the High Court) which
has given rise to filing of the present appeal by way
of  special  leave  by respondent  No.  5  of  the  writ
petition in this Court.
7. The   short   question,   which   arises   for
consideration in this appeal, is whether the High
Court was justified in entertaining the writ petition
3
filed   by   respondent   No.   1   herein   and   Secondly,
whether the High Court was justified in issuing a
mandamus against the appellant directing him to
restore   the   possession   of   the   flat   to   respondent
No. 1.
8. Heard Mr. Haris Beeran, learned counsel for
the   appellant   and   Mr.   R.   Basant,   learned   senior
counsel,   Mr.   A.K.   Joseph   and   Mr.   Nishe   Rajen
Shonker, learned counsel for the respondents.
9. Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
are constrained to allow the appeal, set aside the
impugned order and dismiss the writ petition filed
by respondent No. 1 herein out of which this appeal
arises.
10. In   our   considered   opinion,   the   writ   petition
filed by the respondent No. 1 under Article 226/227
of the Constitution of India against the appellant
4
before   the   High   Court   for   grant   of   relief   of
restoration of the possession of the flat in question
was not maintainable and the same ought to have
been dismissed in limine as being not maintainable.
In   other   words,   the   High   Court   ought   to   have
declined to entertain the writ petition in exercise of
extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of
Constitution for grant of reliefs claimed therein. 
11. It is not in dispute that the reliefs for which
the   writ   petition   was   filed   by   respondent   No.   1
herein against the appellant pertained to possession
of the flat.  It is also not in dispute that one Civil
Suit No. 807/2014 between the appellant and the
respondent No. 1 in relation to the flat in question
for grant of injunction was pending in the Court of
Munsif at Kozhikode. It is also not in dispute that
the appellant and the respondent No. 1 are private
individuals   and  both   are   claiming  their   rights   of
5
ownership and possession over the flat in question
on various factual grounds.
12. In the light of such background facts arising in
the case, we are of the considered opinion that the
filing of the writ petition by respondent No. 1 herein
against the appellant herein under Article 226/227
of the Constitution of India in the High Court, out of
which this appeal arises, was wholly misconceived.
13. The question as to who is the owner of the flat
in question, whether respondent No. 1 was/is in
possession of the flat and, if so, from which date,
how and in what circumstances, he claimed to be in
its   possession,   whether   his   possession   could   be
regarded as legal or not qua its real owner etc. were
some   of   the   material   questions   which   arose   for
consideration in the writ petition. 
14. These   questions,   in   our   view,   were   pure
questions of fact and could be answered one way or
6
the   other   only   by   the   Civil   Court   in   a   properly
constituted   civil   suit   and   on   the   basis   of   the
evidence adduced by the parties but not in a writ
petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
by the High Court. 
15. It has been consistently held by this Court that
a   regular   suit   is   the   appropriate   remedy   for
settlement of the disputes relating to property rights
between   the   private   persons.   The   remedy   under
Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available
except where violation of some statutory duty on the
part of statutory authority is alleged. In such cases,
the   Court   has   jurisdiction   to   issue   appropriate
directions to the authority concerned. It is held that
the   High   Court   cannot   allow   its   constitutional
jurisdiction  to   be  used  for deciding  disputes,  for
which   remedies   under   the   general   law,   civil   or
criminal are available. This Court has held that it is
7
not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by
way of a civil suit or application available to an
aggrieved person. The jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution being special and extraordinary,
it   should   not   be  exercised  casually   or  lightly  on
mere asking by the litigant. (See Mohan Pande vs.
Usha  Rani, 1992 (4) SCC 61 and  Dwarka  Prasad
Agrawal vs BD Agrawal, (2003) 6 SCC 230).
16. In our view, the writ petition to claim such
relief   was   not,   therefore,   legally   permissible.   It,
therefore,   deserved   dismissal   in  limine  on   the
ground of availability of an alternative remedy of
filing   a   civil   suit   by   respondent   No.   1   (writ
petitioner) in the Civil Court.
17. We   cannot,   therefore,   concur   with   the
reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High
Court   when   it   unnecessarily   went   into   all   the
8
questions of fact arising in the case on the basis of
factual pleadings in detail (43 pages) and recorded a
factual finding that it was the respondent No. 1 (writ
petitioner) who was in possession of the flat and,
therefore, he be restored with his possession of the
flat by the appellant.
18. In our opinion, the High Court, therefore, while
so directing exceeded its extraordinary jurisdiction
conferred   under   Article   226   of   the   Constitution.
Indeed, the High Court in granting such relief, had
virtually converted the writ petition into a civil suit
and itself to a Civil Court. In our view, it was not
permissible. 
19. Learned   counsel   for   respondent   No.   1,
however,   strenuously   urged   that   the   impugned
order does not call for any interference because the
High Court has proceeded to decide the writ petition
on admitted facts.
9
20. We   do   not   agree   with   the   submissions   of
learned counsel for respondent No.1 for the reasons
that   first   there   did   exist   a   dispute   between   the
appellant and respondent No. 1 as to who was in
possession of the flat in question at the relevant
time; Second, a dispute regarding possession of the
said flat between the two private individuals could
be decided only by the Civil Court in civil suit or by
the   Criminal   Court   in   Section   145   Cr.P.C
proceedings   but   not   in   the   writ   petition   under
Article 226 of the Constitution.
21. In   view   of   the   foregoing   discussion,   we   are
unable   to   agree   with   the   reasoning   and   the
conclusion   arrived   at   by   the   High   Court   in   the
impugned order.
22. As a consequence, the appeal succeeds and is
accordingly allowed. Impugned order is set aside.
10
The writ petition filed by respondent No. 1, out of
which this appeal arises, stands dismissed.
23. Liberty is, however, granted to the parties to
file civil proceedings in the Civil Court for claiming
appropriate reliefs in relation to the flat in question
for adjudication of their respective claims.
24. We,   however,   make   it   clear   that   while
prosecuting any civil/criminal proceedings by the
parties, as the case may be, any observations and
the   findings   recorded   by   the   High   Court   in   the
impugned order will not be looked into because the
impugned order has since been set aside by this
Court.   
   ………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
                                   …...……..................................J.
                       [INDU MALHOTRA]
New Delhi;
December 03, 2018
11