Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers    |     Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court    |     Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case    |     Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case    |     Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute    |     Paternity Established Through SSC and Appointment Order, Legal Obligation to Maintain Unmarried Daughter: Andhra Pradesh High Court    |     No Appeal Shall Be Heard Without Disputed Tax Deposit: Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 96(b) of the Cantonment Act, 2006    |     Parties Must Choose Peace Over Litigation: Calcutta High Court Denies FIR Quashing in Family Dispute, Highlights Mediation Option    |     Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Recruitment of 1091 Assistant Professors and 67 Librarians In Punjab Due to Procedural Flaws    |     Res Judicata Bars Reconsideration of Adoption Validity in Second Round of Litigation: Jammu & Kashmir High Court    |     Candidates who use a party’s symbol must be deemed members of that party: Kerala High Court Upholds Disqualification for Defection    |     Inconsistencies in Eyewitness Accounts and Lack of Forensic Certainty Lead to Acquittal: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case    |     Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Notices Under Section 148 Due to Invalid Sanction by JCIT    |     Summons Under PMLA for Further Investigation Does Not Infringe Right Against Self-Incrimination: Telangana HC    |     Termination During Probation Is Lawful if Concealment of Criminal Case Is Proven: Allahabad HC    |    

Supreme Court Modifies High Court Order on Property Dispute, Averts Demolition of Constructed Buildings

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling delivered on November 6, 2023, the Supreme Court has modified the judgment of the High Court which had earlier directed the demolition of certain constructions on a disputed property. The apex court’s bench, comprising justices VIKRAM NATH and RAJESH BINDAL, intervened in the civil appeal filed against the High Court’s decision that modified the original decree by the Trial Court.

The Supreme Court observed that, “demolition of the already constructed buildings may not be in the interest of any of the parties,” indicating a move towards a more considered approach in dealing with the partition and use of the property involved. This comes after a preliminary decree was passed by the Trial Court in a suit filed for the declaration, partition, and separate possession of family property, which went unchallenged by the family members concerned, but faced contention from an appellant claiming rights through a co-sharer.

The bench underscored the importance of the final decree for partition by metes and bounds, stating, “We have no doubt that in the process of passing final decree for partition of the property by metes and bounds, the court below will consider all aspects in terms of settled principles of law for that purpose.”

The Supreme Court has directed the Trial Court to expedite the process for passing the final decree, emphasizing the age of the case and the need for a resolution. The justices have also made it clear that they have “not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy,” leaving the determination of the legality of the constructions and the final partition to the lower court.

This ruling is poised to set a precedent in how property disputes involving significant construction and investment are approached, particularly when the rights of non-family members who claim through co-sharers come into contention.

Date of Decision: November 06, 2023

M/s MULTICON BUILDERS VS SUMANDEVI AND OTHERS       

Similar News