Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Dr. Dhananjaya Yashwant Chandrachud, CJ., Dilip Gupta, J.
Rama Shankar Tiwari - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & 6 Others - Respondent
Writ - C No. - 20606 of 2014
Decided On : 09-04-2014
Mandamus - Property Dispute - The court dismissed the petition seeking a writ of mandamus to place the disputed property under lock and seal until the final decision of the ownership dispute, stating that the issue of title and possession cannot be determined under Article 226 of the Constitution and that sufficient remedies are available under the Specific Relief Act and through proceedings before the competent Civil Court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to place the disputed property under lock and seal until the final decision of the ownership dispute pending before the Civil Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition, stating that the issue of title and possession cannot be determined under Article 226 of the Constitution and that sufficient remedies are available under the Specific Relief Act and through proceedings before the competent Civil Court.
Issues: The issue of whether the court should issue a writ of mandamus to place the disputed property under lock and seal until the final decision of the ownership dispute pending before the Civil Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the issue of title and possession cannot be determined under Article 226 of the Constitution and that sufficient remedies are available under the Specific Relief Act and through proceedings before the competent Civil Court.
Final Decision: The petition seeking a writ of mandamus was dismissed by the court.
Hon’ble Dilip Gupta,J.
The relief which the petitioner seeks is as follows: -
“(1) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding to the police authorities to, forthwith put seal lock on the property in dispute (House no. 24/11, Tula Ram Bag Allahabad which was sealed/locked by the respondent no.4, S.H.O. P.S. George Town, Allahabad, since 07.12.2009 to till 27/11/2013), and put under lock and seal condition to the house in dispute (house no 24/11 Tula Ram Bag Allahabad), till the final decision of the ownership (title dispute) of the said property in dispute from the Court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Court No.8, District-Allahabad, being Original Suit No.1083 of 2010, filed by Shri Raj Kulshresth respondent no.5, against the State of Uttar Pradesh and the petitioner (Annexure No. 8 to this writ petition).”
2. The petitioner claims under a will of the testator Harsh Bardhan Kulshresth. His grievance is that upon the death of the testator, the house in dispute was under a lock in key and on 27 November, 2013, the possession was unlawfully taken by the sixth and seventh respondents.
3. The direction sought is to the police authorities to place the house under lock till the decision of a title dispute which is pending before the competent Civil Court.
4. The records would indicate that there are as many as five suits which are pending between the petitioner and the contesting private respondents. The issue of title and for that matter of possession cannot be determined in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Sufficient remedies are available including under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Even otherwise, proceedings under the ordinary civil law for such reliefs could be instituted before and determined by the competent Civil Court. The parties have already instituted proceedings which are pending before the Civil Court.
5. Hence, it would not be possible for this Court to interfere, particularly in order to resolve the disputed questions of fact.
The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
