2021 (2) TMI 1200 - HC - Indian Laws

Joint ownership in the property - Execution of fraudulent sale deeds - HELD THAT - This Court does not think that this writ petition could be entertained, when the petitioner and others have gone to the competent civil Court and filed a suit in O.S.No.166 of 2020 as against the rival claim of the private respondents 5 and 6 - When the suit is pending before the competent civil Court, it is always open to the petitioner to seek any interim protection, safeguarding his right, pending finalization of the dispute by the civil Court. When the title dispute is pending before the civil Court as between the parties, it is not open to the petitioner herein to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and seek any parallel direction to protect his interest. The proper course of remedy open to the petitioner is to obtain appropriate directions from the civil Court in the pending suit to protect his interest during the pendency of the civil dispute - petition not maintainable and is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over joint ownership of property
2. Execution of power of attorney and fraudulent sale deeds
3. Representation for enquiry and disposal

Analysis:
1. The petitioner claimed joint ownership of a property inherited from his grandmother, which he possessed without interruption. After the demise of his mother and maternal uncle, he and his sisters, along with the legal heirs of his maternal uncle, were in joint possession of the property. A title dispute arose, leading the petitioner to file a suit in the District Munsif Court. Despite legal notice to the 3rd respondent and the pending civil suit, a power of attorney was executed by the 5th respondent in favor of the 7th respondent, who then executed fraudulent sale deeds in favor of respondents 8 and 9, registered by the 3rd respondent.

2. Following these events, the petitioner submitted a representation for an enquiry. However, the High Court held that the writ petition could not be entertained while a civil suit was pending. The court emphasized that the petitioner could seek interim protection through the civil court to safeguard his rights during the dispute resolution process. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India for parallel directions to protect his interest was deemed inappropriate as it could escalate the dispute and impact the pending suit directly. The court advised the petitioner to obtain necessary directions from the civil court to protect his interests during the ongoing dispute.

3. Consequently, the High Court concluded that the writ petition was not maintainable and dismissed it, stating that the proper course of action for the petitioner was to seek appropriate directions from the civil court. The judgment highlighted that issuing directions in the writ petition would only complicate the dispute and interfere with the proceedings in the civil suit. No costs were awarded in the dismissal of the writ petition.