LexSHAIKH ALI HOSSAIN AND ORS. versus SH. SHOWKATALI AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008) 8 S.C.R. 867 SHAIKH ALI HOSSAIN AND ORS. v. SH. SHOWKATALI AND ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 3650 Of 2008) MAY 14, 2008 [TARUN CHATTERJEE AND R.V. RAVEENDRAN, JJ.] Constitution of India, 19.50 - Article 227- Dispute relat- A B ing to extent of land possessed by the parties - Suit for decla- ration by respondent that appellant had no right in suit prop- c erties and application for injunction - Trial Court and First Ap- pellate Court on interpretation of an order dated 24.3.1995 passed in earlier round of litigations rejected injunction ap- plication - Application before High Court under Article .227 of Constitution - High Court set aside the concurrent orders of D .;. courts below and directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit properties till the disposal of the suit -:-Chal- lenge against- Held: Per Raveendran, J. ~ Grant or refuse'! of an injunction is within the judicial discretion of the trial court - High Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Ar- ticle 227, was not justified in interfering with the concurrent find- E ing of courts below - High Court has re-examined the matter as if it was sitting in appeal over the orders of Courts below and reached different conclusion, which is erroneous - Held: + Per Tarun Chatterjee, J - The order of this court dated 24. 3. 1995 is capable of being interpreted in various ways and therefore, F it must be held that a triable issue had been raised by the respondent for which the only order that could be passed, on the application for injunction, was to directthe parties to main- tain status quo as regards the character and nature of the suit properties till the disposal of the suit - Per Court - In view of G :ir difference of opinion, the Registry is directed to place this matter before Hon'b/e the Chief Justice of India for appropri- ate orders. 867 H 868 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R. A Premises No.108 measuring 37 decimals belonged to father and uncle of plaintiffs-respondents. They sold 33 decimals out of the said property to their nephew, 'SA' under registered sale deed. On the application of 'SA', the portion (33 decimals) purchased by him was bifurcated s and assigned a separate number identified as premises no.108A. Both the parties filed suits. By common judgment, suit for injunction by 'SA' was decreed and suit for decla- rationof-title by adverse possession filed by respondents C was dismissed. Trial Court held that 'SA' had proved his possession of 33 decimals in premises no.108A and respondents failed to prove their possession of premises no.108A. The :.· 0 judgment of trial Court was upheld by the first appellate Court and High Court. When matter came up before this ~· · Court, respondents admitted that 'SA' hc;d purchased 33 decimals. 'SA' confirmed that respondents were in posses- sion of 6.5 decimals of land and that they were the owners of the said 6.5 decimals of land. The respondents admitted E that 'SA' was in possession of the remaining land. This Court having recorded the said submissions disposed of the appeals by judgment dated 24.3.1995 directing each party to not to disturb the possession of the other. F The plaintiffs filed present suit for declaration that appellants had no right, title and interest in the suit prop- erties and an application for injunction restraining appel- lants from interfering with their possession. The plaintiffs- respondents in the present suit interpreted the decision of this Court dated 24.3.1995 as holding that they were G entitled to 6.5 decimals out of 33 decimals sold to 'SA' and -. that 'SA' was therefore entitled to only the remaining 26.5 "' decimals. Plaintiffs also alleged that defendants 1 to 7 who were the 'SA' had entered into some deal with defen- H dants 8 and 9 in regard to the entire extent of Premises SHAIKH ALI HOSSAIN AND ORS. v.SH. 869 SHOWKAT ALI AND ANR. No.108A including the 6.5 decimals owned and pos- A sessed by plaintiffs. The Trial Court on interpretation of order dated 24.3.1995 rejected injunction application, which was upheld by the First Appellate Court. Plaintiffs filed application before High Court under Article 227 of Constitution. The High Court set aside the concurrent B orders of the courts below rejecting the application for injunction and directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit properties till the disposal of the suit. Hence the present
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.