It means that no third party rights can be created
HC has been directed to pass orders after hearing all parties
Outcome of SLP in Supreme Court
Dear all This issue relates to a lengthy Muslim partition suit involving my great grandfather's estate which was distributed amongst his 8 legal heirs - 4 daughters and 4 sons. My grandfather (eldest brother and 4th oldest in order) inherited a plot of land measuring 3000 sq yards on which he had constructed a commercial complex back in the early 90s and another area of land measuring 7000 sq yards on which he constructed a cinema hall which is incomplete. He had 5 daughters and one of them is my mother. In the year 1994, a 'declaration deed' was signed amongst the 7 legal heirs relinquishing their rights to the above properties and also mentioning that the building was constructed from my grandfather's own funds and that none of the other siblings or their children would ever stake a claim on this property or harass my grandfather's children with regards to it. The eldest sibling had passed away in 1986 and the deed was signed by her daughter who was the registered GPA holder of the rest of the third generation involving the descendants of the eldest daughter. The partition suit was filed by my grandfather's younger brothers against him in 1997 and unfortunately the preliminary decree in the Hyderabad City Civil Court said to partition the above properties by meats and bounds as the deed was not registered among 35 legal heirs. My mother and aunties are currently contesting this in the high court and the appeal is awaited. We currently also have a stay in High Court. Both properties have always been in our possession (since about the 1980s). This includes sanctioning of GHMC plans in our names and all taxes have been paid for over 30 years in my grandfather and his daughter's names. In the preliminary decree, there is no mention that any parties could take possession from us. I found out that a son of my grandfather's second brother ( my mother's first cousin) has encroached on the second property with 20 goons and has squatted there. Following this encroachment, we got an interim injunction from the High Court post Dussera and the judge granted us 3 reliefs. This was NOT ex parte and noticed were given to all parties. It said : - To repossess the said properties - To bar any of the remaining parties from encroaching the above properties and other schedules in the said partition suit -Police protection as the petitioners are women All the goons immediately left the properties following the above and we took possession. This was on 16/10/19. After this, the opposition went to the SC and filed SLP and today, I found out that the matter be remanded back to the HC and SLP comes up as 'disposed' on the SC website. But the 2 judge bench apparently also gave order of Status Quo as well.But the order copy will be available tomorrow and this is not yet confirmed. Does this mean the above Hc injunction is set aside ? We are worried the opposition may send goons again and create havoc. Please can you explain what this actually means ? .
Asked 4 years ago in Property Law
Religion: Muslim
First answer received in 10 minutes.
Lawyers are available now to answer your questions.
24 Answers
Under Article 136 of the Constitution the Supreme Court may reverse, modify or affirm the judgment-decree or order appealed against while exercising its appellate jurisdiction and not while exercising the discretionary jurisdiction disposing of petition for special leave to appeal.
The statement of law contained in the order is a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. Secondly, other than the declaration of law, whatever is stated in the order are the findings recorded by the Supreme Court which would bind the parties thereto and also the court, tribunal or authority in any proceedings subsequent thereto by way of judicial discipline, the Supreme Court being the Apex Court of the country. But, this does not amount to saying that the order of the court, tribunal or authority below has stood merged in the order of the SC rejecting the special leave petition or that the order of the Supreme Court is the only order binding as res judicata in subsequent proceedings between the parties.
Now still we have not received specific reason of dismissal for SLP on which ground they had given the order.
But still you can file case after that on adverse possession grounds. And retain possession of property forever under your control.
Status quo means to Maintain the present legal position. In your case this would mean high court order will remain in force till high court reconsider and decides otherwise.
1. the SC has sent the matter to the appeal court for adjudication
2. so now the HC will decide the appeal against the partition decree of the trial court
3. since the SC has also directed the parties to maintain status quo, this will protect the properties against any encroachment till the appeal is decided by the HC
4. If any party breaches the status quo order, then he/she will become liable for contempt of court against which the aggrieved party can file a contempt petition either in HC or SC directly
Thanks sir. So basically we got the interim injunction from the HC on 16.10.19 due to encroachments. But notices were served to every party concerned. They had 4 days to file counter also. Instead they went to Sc and told their advocate on record that we got exparte order against them and to stay the matter. They engaged Mr Sibal today and even lied to him saying it was exparte. From our side, Mr Ranjit Kumar and Mr CU Singh showed the notices to the bench clearly showing it was not exparte. Following which, the bench decided 'To remand the matter back to High Court' With my limited legal knowledge, I think they'll need to file counter. But as you may understand, we were wondering in this instance, what happens to the interim injunction given earlier by the HC given their earlier behaviour of using goons, bribing the police and other antisocial activities
Asked 4 years ago
You can post security guards on site
2) install CCTV cameras
3) they would not encroach on property pending hearing and final disposal of case before HC
4) if they do so take out contempt of court proceedings against them
Against ex parte, set aside application is maintainable. An appeal lies against an order rejecting an application to set aside ex parte decree.
Remand back order has any observation to vacate stay order ?
If they had file SLP on Exparte ground SC judges will think in that direction so they had send back case to HC on Exparte ground and may order to HC to listen other party as well.
But on true ground it were a real decision order was given to evict the land or property. So you don't worry here they are in false ground filing the case and running from one pillar to another.
Now you don't give possession to them at any cost. Stick to the adverse possession law.
If the sc has remanded the matter and ordered status quo then twhreis no need to worry. They must be knowing what has happened.
The court has seen through their lies and hence has remanded the matter to the high court. The injunction still stands.
Regards
No since status quo order that.means the earlier order of high court is valid, stay is still there , and high.court has to decide the issue again.
In case any goon or party come directly file police complaint they cannot enter the property.
The high court order stands valid and they cannot enter the property , the SC has mainted status quo meaning thereby you will be only in possession till matter is decided by the high court.
dont worry
the ad-interim order of the HC will continue to operate
the appeal will now be finally decided by the HC
Status quo order in law means that court has ordered that the present condition be maintained and no change be done. The earlier order of the high court granting you injunction is still in force.
If the opposite party tries to take possession from you forcibly, file a police complaint.
If the supreme court has passed an order to maintain status quo and remanded the matter to high court then you may have to fight the injunction application once again on merits.
However without knowing the contents of the supreme court order any further opinion may be misleading.
Interim injunction granted by high court is an exparte decision only.
If the supreme court has remanded the matter to high court with a decision to maintain status quo then the high court will decide only after they file their counter and after hearing both the sides.
status quo refers that the position which is there will be continued by both the parties. if he sends goons you need to take police help
No high court injunction is not set aside it is remanded back for reconsideration.
Hi all So the Sc website today has uploaded the order copy. In it, it has passed order of Status Quo to be maintained until disposal by HC. Unfortunately, it has set aside the earlier interim injunction granted to us for 1) Police protection 2) To bar them from doing any further encroachments. I have not mentioned repossession as currently we peacefully possess the said properties in question. It gave a direction to HC to allow the filing of counters from the opposition and dispose the IAs in 4 weeks time. However, it also said the SLP is allowed and is now called Civil appeal ? So does this means once disposed by HC, we still have to contest this in SC again ? If the HC again grants an order in our favour after hearing the counters, can they go back to Sc again ? Please advice. Many thanks
Asked 4 years ago
Status quo order protects your interest
2) after considering reply filed by OP and arguments any order passed by HC can be subject matter of appeal in SC
If the order of the sc is a final one then it has directed the hc to hear and decide the matter.
If you get the order in your favour then its ok otherwise approach the sc.
The slp is converted into civil appeal once it is allowed. It is a complicated process.
But the order cannot say that they can encroach upon the land. Status quo means you can maintain possession of the property.
Regards
yes if the HC gives a order in your favour he can go to SC. and if it gives in his favour you need to go to SC
One must peruse the orders of the supreme court in this regard and no hasty conclusions can be made merely on what is expressed by you here.
At one place you have mentioned that the SC passed orders to HC to dispose the case and in another place you say that the SC has allowed the SLP and it has now been converted to civil appeal, hence the order copy have to perused for rendering a proper opinion.
See since leave by SLP is granted therefore it is.called.civil appeal you don't have to contest same.after HC court.
After order of HC by filing fresh SLP they can approach Supreme court in Appellant jurisdiction.
If orders are granted against you then you have to approach Supreme Court.
Yes they can go to SC if they feel aggrieved by order of HC.
Matter is remanded back, trail will proceed in HC only.