ROSHINA T versus ABDUL AZEEZ K.T. & ORS.

ROSHINA T versus ABDUL AZEEZ K.T. & ORS.

Disputes for possession and ownership of property between private individuals should be adjudicated by civil courts in properly constituted civil suits based on evidence, not through writ petitions under Article 226/227; the High Court erred in exercising extraordinary jurisdiction in the matter and issuing mandamus.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Roshina T; Respondent No.1: Abdul Azeez K.T.; Respondents: Other respondents (local police authorities)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
03 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Final Judgment and Order of the High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Article 226/227 – Writ Jurisdiction, Alternative Remedies, Property Dispute Between Private Individuals
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Article 226/227 – Writ Jurisdiction Alternative Remedies Property Dispute Between Private Individuals

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roshina T

Appellant

Abdul Azeez K.T.

Respondent No.1

Other respondents (local police authorities)

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Final Judgment and Order of the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was justified in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution in a private property dispute
  2. 2 Whether the High Court was justified in issuing a mandamus to restore possession of the flat

Ratio Decidendi

Disputes for possession and ownership of property between private individuals should be adjudicated by civil courts in properly constituted civil suits based on evidence, not through writ petitions under Article 226/227; the High Court erred in exercising extraordinary jurisdiction in the matter and issuing mandamus.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned order set aside
  • Writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 dismissed