SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Ori) 187

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
A.K. RATH, J.
Laxmikanta Sahoo - Appellant
Versus
Arun Kumar Sahoo and Others - Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 7 of 2017
Decided On : 06-03-2019

Advocates Appeared:
N.C. Pati, Adv., B. Das, Adv.

Preservation of status quo and allowing construction with conditions in property disputes.

Headnote:

Injunction - Property Dispute - C.S. No.1283 of 2013, C.S. No.269 of 2015 - Order 31 Rule 1 C.P.C. - Mandali Ranganna and others vs. T. Ramachandra and others, (2008) AIR(SCW) 3817 - M/s. Graftek Pvt. Ltd. and others vs. Sri Lord Lingaraj Mahaprabhu Bije, Bhubaneswar, (1998) 2 OrissaLR 404

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff filed suits for partition and injunction against his father and brothers over a property claimed to be joint family property. Defendant no.1, a purchaser, constructed a building on the disputed land. The appellate court directed the parties to maintain status quo over the property.

Finding of the Court:

Defendant no.1's construction on the disputed land was acknowledged. The court referred to previous cases and allowed defendant no.1 to continue construction with conditions.

Issues: Dispute over the nature of the property, rights of the parties, and the legality of defendant no.1's construction.

Ratio Decidendi: The court allowed defendant no.1 to continue construction with conditions, citing previous cases and emphasizing the need to preserve the status quo until the final decision.

Final Decision: The court directed the suits to be heard analogously and disposed of expeditiously.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J.

This petition challenges the order dated 24.11.2016 passed by the District Judge, Kendrapara in F.A.O. No.49 of 2016, whereby and whereunder the appellate court directed the parties to maintain status quo over the suit property.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the short fact of the case is that plaintiff-opposite party no.1 instituted C.S. No.1283 of 2013 in the court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Kendrapara for partition against his father and brothers pleading inter alia that the suit property was purchased by his father, defendant no.2, out of joint family fund. The suit property is the joint family property. Plaintiff filed I.A. No.649 of 2013 for injunction to restrain his father from alienating the suit property. The petition was dismissed with a finding that the suit property is the self-acquired property of his father. Thereafter, he filed another suit being C.S. No.269 of 2015 in the court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kendrapara for partition, declaration that the sale deed dated 10.4.2015 executed by his father in favour of defendant no.1 is void and illegal, permanent injunction and certain other ancillary reliefs. It was pleaded that the suit land was purchased out of joint family fund. In an amicable partition, he got Ac.0.015.5 kadi and has raised two pucca rooms over the same. He filed an application, i.e., I.A. No.54 of 2016 under Order 31 Rule 1 C.P.C. to injunct the defendant no.1 from demolishing the construction and making any construction over the suit plot. The defendant no.1 has filed objection stating that the suit land was purchased by defendant no.2 on 11.12.1979 when the plaintiff was a minor. The same was the self-acquired property of defendant no.2. The land was recorded in favour of defendant no.2 in the consolidation ROR. The defendant no.1 has purchased the suit land with the constructions made thereon. He demolished the old construction and constructed a building upto roof level. The trial court allowed the petition and restrained the defendant no.1 from demolishing the pucca house and wall of the asbestos rooms over the suit land and from constructing any house over any portion of the suit land. The unsuccessful defendant no.1 filed F.A.O. No.49 of 2016 in the court of the District Judge, Kendrapara. The appellate court directed the parties to maintain status quo over the suit land.

3. Heard Mr. N.C. Pati along with Mr. B. Das, learned Advocates for the petitioner. None appeared for the opposite party no.1.

4. In course of hearing, Mr. Pati, learned Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that defendant no.1 is a bona fide purchaser of the suit plot. After purchase, he has demolished the asbestos rooms standing over the suit land and constructed a building upto roof level. In C.S. No.1283/2013, an application for injunction (I.A. No.649 of 2013) was filed. The said application was dismissed on 30.3.2015 with a finding that the suit property is the self-acquired property of the father of the plaintiff. The said order attained finality. The suit is sub-judice. Plaintiff again filed C.S. No.269/2015 for partition and certain other ancillary reliefs in the court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kendrapara. The courts below brushed aside the order passed by the trial court in I.A. No.649 of 2013 arising out of C.S. No.1283/2013. He further submitted that since the defendant no.1 has constructed a building upto roof level, he may be allowed to cast the roof. He placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mandali Ranganna and others, etc. vs. T. Ramachandra and others, (2008) AIR(SCW) 3817 and this Court in the case of M/s. Graftek Pvt. Ltd. and others vs. Sri Lord Lingaraj Mahaprabhu Bije, Bhubaneswar, (1998) 2 OrissaLR 404.

5. The impugned order reveals that the assertion of the plaintiff that defendant no.1 has undertaken that construction work over a portion of the suit land has admitted by defendant no.1 in his show cause. The defendant no.1 asserts th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top