Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court's Order in Property Possession Dispute

The case of Roshina T vs. Abdul Azeez K.T. & Ors. revolves around a property possession dispute where the Supreme Court had to decide whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could be used to settle such matters. The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated December 3, 2018, held that civil disputes regarding property possession between private individuals should be decided by a civil court and not through a writ petition. As a result, the Supreme Court set aside the Kerala High Court’s order, which had directed the appellant to restore possession of the disputed flat to the respondent.

This ruling clarifies the limitations of writ jurisdiction and emphasizes that property disputes between private individuals should be addressed through proper legal channels, such as civil suits.

Background of the Case

The dispute involved the possession of Flat No. 3D, 3rd floor, Royal Court-Block IV, located in Kozhikode, Kerala. The respondent, Abdul Azeez K.T., filed a writ petition (W.P. (C) No. 15385 of 2017) before the Kerala High Court, claiming that he had been unlawfully dispossessed of the flat by the appellant, Roshina T. The High Court issued a writ of mandamus, directing the appellant to restore possession to the respondent.

The appellant, challenging this order, approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining a writ petition for a civil dispute.

Legal Issues Considered

The Supreme Court examined the following key issues:

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 could be used to resolve a dispute over possession of property between private individuals.
Whether the High Court was justified in directing the appellant to restore possession of the flat.
Whether the case should have been dealt with through a civil suit instead.

Arguments by the Appellant

The appellant, Roshina T, argued:

The dispute over property possession was a private matter and did not involve any government authority.
The respondent should have filed a civil suit instead of approaching the High Court through a writ petition.
The High Court erred in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 for a matter that should be decided by a civil court.
The issue involved questions of fact regarding ownership and possession, which required a trial with evidence, something not possible in a writ petition.

Arguments by the Respondent

The respondent, Abdul Azeez K.T., countered:

He was unlawfully dispossessed of the property, making it necessary to approach the High Court for immediate relief.
The High Court was correct in exercising its jurisdiction to prevent the unlawful deprivation of property.
The facts of the case were clear, and there was no need for a lengthy trial in a civil court.
The High Court had correctly ordered the restoration of possession to protect his rights.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and Indu Malhotra, ruled that the Kerala High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition and issuing a mandamus for restoring possession. The Court emphasized that civil disputes between private individuals should be resolved through civil suits.

The key observations of the Court included:

“A regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of disputes relating to property rights between 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 a statutory authority is alleged.”
“The High Court cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes for which remedies under general law, civil or criminal, are available.”
“The High Court, by directing restoration of possession, had virtually converted the writ petition into a civil suit, which is impermissible.”

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

Writ Jurisdiction Has Limits: The Supreme Court reinforced that writ petitions cannot be used to resolve private property disputes between individuals.
Property Disputes Belong in Civil Courts: Matters involving possession, ownership, and title should be decided through civil suits with proper evidence and legal procedures.
Statutory Violations Must Be Shown: Writ petitions are appropriate only when a statutory duty is violated by a government or public authority.
Extraordinary Jurisdiction Should Not Be Misused: High Courts should not exceed their constitutional powers by entertaining private disputes that belong in regular courts.

Final Directions

The Supreme Court ruled:

The High Court’s order directing the appellant to restore possession was set aside.
The writ petition filed by the respondent was dismissed.
The respondent was granted liberty to file a civil suit to claim possession through proper legal channels.
Any observations made by the High Court in the impugned order would not be considered in future legal proceedings.

Conclusion

This judgment reinforces the principle that civil disputes, particularly those concerning property rights between private individuals, should be resolved through regular legal channels and not by invoking writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court’s decision ensures that High Courts do not overstep their constitutional boundaries and that civil suits remain the primary remedy for property disputes.

Individuals involved in property possession disputes should seek appropriate legal recourse through civil courts, ensuring that such matters are decided based on evidence and proper legal procedures rather than summary proceedings in writ petitions.

Petitioner Name: Roshina T.
Respondent Name: Abdul Azeez K.T. & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Justice Indu Malhotra.
Place Of Incident: Kozhikode, Kerala.
Judgment Date: 03-12-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Roshina T vs Abdul Azeez K.T. & O Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 03-12-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Specific Performance
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay Manohar Sapre
See all petitions in Judgment by Indu Malhotra
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category