9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the partition of the suit properties. 2. Grant of injunction against construction and alienation of the suit properties. 3. Conduct of the parties in relation to the suit properties. Summary: 1. Validity of the Partition of the Suit Properties: The appellants contended that the partition of the suit properties, purportedly effected in 1924, was only partial. They argued that the properties were still jointly possessed, as evidenced by the deed of adoption dated 13.12.1937. The respondents, however, maintained that the partition was complete and that they had been in possession of the properties since 1924. The Supreme Court noted that the principal question was whether the properties were subject to partition in 1924 or subsequently. The Court observed that the respondents had been in possession of the properties for a long time and had been dealing with them exclusively, while the appellants had not exercised any act of possession. 2. Grant of Injunction Against Construction and Alienation of the Suit Properties: The appellants sought a preliminary decree for partition and possession of the properties, along with a permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from alienating or constructing on the properties. During the pendency of the suit, the original defendants executed a registered deed of lease and handed over possession of the property to respondent No. 12. The appellants filed applications for injunction to restrain the respondents from digging pits, putting up constructions, or transferring the properties. The Trial Court initially directed maintenance of status quo but later granted the injunctions. The High Court, however, allowed the respondents' appeal, setting aside the Trial Court's order and permitting construction subject to the final decision of the suit. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the conduct of the parties and the long-standing possession of the respondents were relevant factors. The Court directed that any construction or alienation would be subject to the ultimate decision of the suit and required the respondents to furnish sufficient security. 3. Conduct of the Parties in Relation to the Suit Properties: The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of the conduct of the parties while considering an application for injunction. The Court noted that the respondents had been dealing with the properties exclusively for a long time, and the appellants had not taken any action earlier. The Court emphasized that grant of injunction is an equitable relief and that a person who had kept quiet for a long time and allowed another to deal with the properties exclusively would not ordinarily be entitled to an order of injunction. The Court also took into account the substantial investments made by the respondents in the construction and the potential irreparable injury they would suffer if the constructions were stopped. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, allowing the respondents to carry out constructions subject to the ultimate decision of the suit. The Court directed the Trial Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously and required the respondents to furnish security of Rupees One Crore. The Court emphasized the need for all parties to cooperate in the early hearing and disposal of the suit.
|
