HANIF AZAMI ELIY ASAZAMI versus SHABANA MOHSIN GHAZI @ SHAIKH AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 222 · Decided: 01-08-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
HANIF AZAMI ELIY AS AZAMI 
v. 
SHABANA MOHSIN GHAZI @ SHAIKH AND ANR. 
AUGUST I, 2006 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.) 
Transfer of Property: 
Property co-owned by Respondent No. I and her husband, Respondent 
C No.2-Appellant purchased it from Respondent No.2 who executed agreement 
for himself as well as for Respondent No. I as her attorney-Suit flied by 
Appellant to restrain Respondents from disturbing possession-Trial Court 
granted ad-interim order of "~tatus quo" in respect of the property--Appeal 
against-High Court set aside the order holding that there was collusion 
D between Appellant and Respondent No.2-Directed appointment of Receiver 
and handing over possession of property to Respondent No. I-- -Challenge to--
Held: Without giving any opinion on merits of the case, Supreme Court on 
considerations of equity, directed Trial Court to dispose of the suit at an early 
date. 
E 
The suit property was jointly owned by Respondent No.1 and her 
husband Respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 agreed to sell the property 
to Appellant and executed an agreement in that regard on behalf of himself 
and Respondent No.I on the basis of her authorization, an unregistered 
power of attorney. Appellant paid Rs.It Lakhs in cash to Respondent No.2 
and took possession, but, subsequently apprehending threat, filed suit to 
F restrain Respondents from disturbing his possession. An application for 
interim injunction was filed. Trial Court initially declined to grant any 
interim order but subsequently directed the Respondents to maintain status 
quo in respect of the flat after Respondent No.2 stated that he had no 
objection to the order of status quo being granted. On appeal by 
G Respondent No.1, High Court held that there was collusion between 
Appellant and Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.I was intended to be 
deprived of the suit property. Accordingly it set aside the order of status 
quo passed by the Trial Court and directed appointment of the receiver 
and handing over possession of the suit flat to Respondent No. 1. 
H 
222 
HANIF AZAMI ELIYAS AZAMI v.SHABANA MOHSIN GHAZl@SHAIKH [PASA YAT, J.J223 
In appeal to this Court, it was submitted that the Trial Court's order A 
of status quo was justified when huge sums of money had been paid by 
the Appellant and the appointment of receiver directing delivery of 
possession to Respondent No. I was clearly not warranted under the 
circumstances of the case, particularly when Respondent No.2 was owner 
of half-portion of the property. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1.1. The High Court dealt with the factual aspects in great 
detail. It lost sight of the fact that Respondent No.2 was admittedly half-
owner of the property. The observations by High Court were tentative and 
are not treated to be determinative factor in the suit which is stated to be C 
pending. (225-F-G] 
1.2. The High Court hlld directed the Trial Court to decide the 
proceedings in the suit pending before it within a particular time. Because 
of the interim order passed by this Court, there has been no progress in D 
the suit before the Trial Court. Balancing equities it would be proper to 
direct the trial Court to dispose of the suit at an early date. The interim 
order passed by this Court shall be continued till disposal of the suit by 
the Trial Court. By granting protection it shall not be construed that this 
Court has expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 
(225-G-H; 226-A-B] E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3221 of2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20. 7.2004 of the High Court of 
Bombay in Appeal from Order No. 539 of 2004. 
Vijay Kumar, Bharti Tyagi, Siddharth Sangal and Vishwajit Singh for 
the Appellant. 
Kavita Wadia, Manoj Vajpayee, D.K. Singh and Abhijit Sengupta for 
the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. Leave granted. 
F 
G 
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single 
Judge of the Bombay High Court setting aside the order of status quo passed H 
224 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A by the trial Court and directing appointment of a receiver and handing over 
possession of the disputed property to respondent No.1. 
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
Appellant is the original plaintiff, respondent No.2 is original defendant 
B No.1 and respondent No. I is original defendant No.2. Original defendants 
are husband and wife. They pu

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.