Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order on Property Possession: Roshina T vs. Abdul Azeez K.T. (2018)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable for resolving private property disputes.

CASE TYPE: Civil

Case Name: Roshina T vs. Abdul Azeez K.T. & Ors.

Judgment Date: 03 December 2018

Date of the Judgment: 03 December 2018
Citation: Roshina T vs. Abdul Azeez K.T. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 11759 of 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 30465 of 2017)
Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., Indu Malhotra, J.
Can a High Court use its writ jurisdiction to settle private property disputes? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying the limits of the High Court’s powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court held that disputes over property rights between private individuals should be resolved through civil suits, not writ petitions. This judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to established legal procedures. The majority opinion was authored by Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre.

Case Background

The case revolves around a dispute over the possession of a flat located in Kozhikode. The appellant, Roshina T, and the first respondent, Abdul Azeez K.T., both claimed rights to the property. This dispute led Abdul Azeez K.T. to file a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking restoration of his possession of the flat. Roshina T contested the writ petition, arguing that it was not maintainable and that the issue should be resolved through a civil suit.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Kerala, through its Division Bench, allowed the writ petition filed by Abdul Azeez K.T., directing Roshina T to restore possession of the flat to him. Roshina T then filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court of India, challenging the High Court’s decision.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which empowers High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for other purposes. The Court emphasized that this jurisdiction is extraordinary and should not be used to replace ordinary remedies available under the general law, such as civil suits. The Court noted that disputes involving private property rights between private individuals are generally resolved through civil suits, where evidence can be properly examined and adjudicated.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Roshina T):

• The writ petition filed by the respondent was not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
• The dispute pertained to the possession of a flat, which is a private property matter between two individuals.
• A civil suit regarding the same property was already pending in the Court of Munsif at Kozhikode.
• The High Court should not have entertained the writ petition and should have directed the respondent to pursue a civil suit.

Respondent’s Arguments (Abdul Azeez K.T.):

• The High Court’s order was justified as it was based on admitted facts.
• The High Court rightly directed the appellant to restore the possession of the flat to the respondent.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in entertaining the writ petition filed by the respondent.
2. Whether the High Court was justified in issuing a mandamus against the appellant directing him to restore the possession of the flat to the respondent.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Mohan Pande vs. Usha Rani, 1992 (4) SCC 61: The Supreme Court followed this authority, reiterating that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settling property disputes between private individuals.
• Dwarka Prasad Agrawal vs BD Agrawal, (2003) 6 SCC 230: The Supreme Court followed this authority, emphasizing that the High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction should not be used to decide disputes for which remedies under general law are available.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized the following points:

• The dispute involved private property rights between two individuals, which should be resolved through a civil suit.
• The High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is extraordinary and should not be used to replace ordinary remedies.
• The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by converting the writ petition into a civil suit and deciding factual questions about possession.
• The existence of a pending civil suit regarding the same property further underscored the inappropriateness of the writ petition.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the High Court’s order was based on admitted facts, stating that there was a clear dispute regarding possession that could only be resolved through a civil suit. The Court held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by converting the writ petition into a civil suit and deciding factual questions about possession. The Court emphasized that the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition and should have directed the respondent to pursue a civil suit.

The Court quoted:

• “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.”
• “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.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench consisted of two judges, both of whom concurred with the final decision.

The judgment clarifies the boundaries of the High Court’s writ jurisdiction and reinforces the principle that private property disputes should be resolved through civil suits. This has implications for future cases, ensuring that the High Courts do not overstep their jurisdiction and that property disputes are resolved through the appropriate legal channels.

Key Takeaways

• High Courts should not entertain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution for resolving private property disputes.
• Disputes involving private property rights between private individuals should be resolved through civil suits.
• The writ jurisdiction of the High Court is extraordinary and should not replace ordinary remedies available under general law.
• Factual questions regarding possession of property should be decided by civil courts, not in writ petitions.

Directions

The Supreme Court granted liberty to the parties to file civil proceedings in the Civil Court for claiming appropriate reliefs in relation to the flat in question. The Court also clarified that any observations and findings recorded by the High Court in the impugned order would not be considered in any future civil or criminal proceedings.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that disputes relating to property rights between private individuals must be resolved through civil suits, and not through writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. This judgment reinforces the existing position of law that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is not a substitute for ordinary civil remedies.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Roshina T, setting aside the High Court’s order and dismissing the writ petition filed by Abdul Azeez K.T. The Court held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining a writ petition for a private property dispute and directed the parties to pursue their claims through civil proceedings. This judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to established legal procedures for resolving property disputes.

Category

Parent Category: Constitutional Law

Child Category: Article 226, Constitution of India

Parent Category: Civil Law

Child Category: Property Disputes

Parent Category: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Child Category: Civil Suit

FAQ

Q: Can I file a writ petition in the High Court for a property dispute with my neighbor?
A: No, generally, you cannot. The Supreme Court has clarified that disputes over property rights between private individuals should be resolved through civil suits, not writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Q: What is the difference between a writ petition and a civil suit?
A: A writ petition is a special remedy used to enforce fundamental rights or address statutory violations. A civil suit is a general legal proceeding used to resolve private disputes, including those related to property rights, where evidence is presented and adjudicated.

Q: What should I do if I have a property dispute with another person?
A: You should file a civil suit in the appropriate civil court. This will allow the court to properly examine the evidence and adjudicate the dispute.

Q: Can the High Court interfere in a property dispute between private individuals?
A: The High Court can interfere if there is a violation of a statutory duty by a statutory authority. However, it should not use its writ jurisdiction to settle private property disputes between individuals, as these should be resolved through civil suits.

Q: What happens if the High Court wrongly decides a property dispute in a writ petition?
A: The Supreme Court can set aside such orders, as it did in this case. The parties will then be directed to pursue their claims through civil proceedings.