Disputes over possession of immovable property
Real estate disputes by Surya Sunilkumar, a student at the Ramaiah Institute of Legal Studies
Pooja Mittal versus Rakesh Kumar
The Apex Court in the Pooja Mittal v Rakesh Kumar case on July 14, 2020 overturned an order from the Punjab and Haryana Supreme Court and dismissed a petition for appeal. The dispute concerned suit ownership.
Facts of the case
In this case, the complainant applied for an injunction against the construction of a building by the defendant, which he claimed for himself. The court overturned the motion under Provision 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides for a provision to issue an injunction if the case falls under any of the subsections of Rule 1, as well as an order restricting the repetition or continuation of the Offense. The court was also of the opinion that the property belonged to the defendant, since the applicant had no evidence of the purchase of the first floor above the aforementioned property. The appeal was dismissed by the first court of appeal.
The Supreme Court made the following comment and pronounced the verdict:
• While the Supreme Court rejected the appeal by Rakesh Kumar, the Respondent, against the consensus of the court and the Court of Appeal, which rejected the plaintiffs (here the Respondents for interim measures), it instructed the parties to maintain the status quo in terms of tightening property.
• The Supervisory Committee was of the opinion that the HC did not take into account the facts established by the trial and by the first court of appeal, which was in favor of the respondents named here. The first complainant stated: “… In view of the foregoing, the court rightly dismissed the complaint as the complainant / plaintiff has not currently provided any evidence of the purchase of the first floor above the property in dispute. In view of this, the judgments presented by the applicant’s lawyer are not currently applicable … “
• The judgment also confirmed that the HC’s decision on the petition instructing the parties to maintain suo moto was not valid as the plaintiff did not provide prima facie evidence of granting relief.
• It was also noted that the pending case between the parties was limited to making further observations on this case.
• It instructed the court to expedite the hearing of the case and deliver a judgment, preferably before March 2021.
The order passed by the Supreme Court corrects the mistake of High Punjab and Haryana. The aforementioned court did not understand the facts. Paragraph 9 of the ruling of the First Court of Appeal discussed the facts of the case in relation to the property in suit. The preliminary court concluded that there was no prima facie evidence under the subject matter of the revision.
The court found that the suit property belonged to the defendants and that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of the purchase of the first floor above the suit property at issue. The Supreme Court has therefore ruled that the finding of the trial and the first court of appeal is relevant to the case.
In this case, the court made it clear that the Suo-Moto order should only be issued if the case is prima facie. It has also asked the court to expedite the process in order for the parties to the lawsuit to be fair. The decree issued by the Apex Court made no finding in the complaint submitted, but rejected the appeal for appeal.