CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court

Preservation of Status Quo Paramount in Property Disputes: Delhi High Court in Gali Ownership Battle

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 

In a significant ruling, the High Court of Delhi, presided by Justice Shalinder Kaur, overturned the decision of the Trial Court that allowed the installation of an iron gate in a disputed common gali (lane), emphasizing the importance of maintaining the status quo in property disputes.

The legal crux of this judgment revolves around the petition under Article 227 for setting aside the Trial Court's order that permitted Nalanda Modern Public School to install a gate on the disputed gali, thus engaging issues of ownership and the preservation of status quo under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The petitioners, heirs of one of the original shareowners of the disputed property, challenged the respondents' (school authorities) claim over the gali. The respondents argued the need for the gate for security purposes in the school premises. The pivotal issue was whether the respondents' actions of constructing a gate complied with the status quo order and respected the mutual rights over the common passage.

Justice Kaur meticulously analyzed the case's history and the orders passed. She observed, “The admitted position is that the status quo order is still continuing...” and noted that the security concerns raised by the school were not substantiated adequately as the issue was never raised prior to 2021.

The Court found that the Trial Court's order permitting the gate installation was contradictory to the existing status quo order. It was emphasized that any modification to the property should not disturb the delicate balance of rights maintained until the dispute's resolution.

 

The High Court set aside the Trial Court’s order allowing the installation of the iron gate, citing lack of substantial reasoning related to the safety concerns and the violation of the status quo order. However, the court did not interfere with the decision to level the gali, noting the petitioners' no objection to this aspect.

Date of Decision : March 27, 2024.

Sh. Sat Narain & Anr vs. Nalanda Modern Public School & Ors

Latest Legal News