TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Sister's 30-year cultivation rights protected as HC dismisses brother's challenge to partition restraint orders</h1> <h3>Mohammad Rafiq Rather Versus Sara Banoo</h3> The HC dismissed a writ petition challenging trial court orders regarding partition of ancestral property between siblings. The plaintiff sister sought to ... Writ Petition - Common ancestor property - Partition land Possession and interference in a property between the plaintiff and the defendant - share of the plaintiff on being partitioned and is enjoying the same for the last more than three decades - Plaintiff is the sister of the defendant - Challenged the order passed by trial Court with the direction that the respondent is temporarily restrained from causing the obstruction in the cultivation of suit property till the disposal of main suit - The court also restrained respondent herein from creating third party interest or change the nature of the suit property for the purposes other than cultivation - HELD THAT:- It is trite proposition of law that this Court while exercising power of superintendence will not interfere with the orders passed by the Courts unless there is manifest miscarriage of justice. This Court will not normally interfere even if there is some wrong committed on facts or law by the Courts below. Article 227 cannot be invoked only for the reason that the petitioner feels aggrieved of the order impugned in the petition. The compelling circumstances have to be made out by the aggrieved party against the order impugned in the petition requiring interference by the Court. In Supreme Court case Radhey Shyam & Anr. Vs. Chhabi Nath & Ors. [2015 (7) TMI 376 - SUPREME COURT], it has been held that ‘an error in the decision or determination itself may also be amenable to a writ of certiorari but it must be a manifest error apparent on the face of the proceedings, e.g. when it is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law. In other words, it is a patent error which can be corrected by certiorari but not a mere wrong decision’. The court is not convinced that the orders passed by the Courts below require any interference of sort in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned trial Court has taken care of the controversy involved and issues which require determination in the suit in hand and also protected the rights of the parties. The appellate Court has confirmed the order of the trial Court with valid reasons. Thus, the Court finds no reason to set aside the impugned order and allow the present petition. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Issues:1. Appeal against orders dated 15.07.2022 and 11.07.2023 passed by the Court of Munsiff Kangan and the Court of Principal District Judge, Ganderbal respectively.2. Dispute over possession and interference in cultivation of suit property.3. Allegations of interference by defendant in property enjoyed by plaintiff.4. Contradictory revenue reports and their impact on the case.5. Arguments regarding maintainability of the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.6. Consideration of previous suits and their impact on the current case.7. Applicability of the principle of superintendence and interference by the Court.Analysis:The judgment pertains to a petition under Article 227 challenging orders passed by lower courts in a property dispute. The plaintiff, a descendant of a common ancestor, claimed possession of a property shared through partition. The defendant, disputing the partition, alleged interference by the plaintiff and sought recovery of possession. The defendant argued that courts erred in relying on certain revenue reports and disregarding others, leading to a flawed decision. The plaintiff contended that concurrent findings of lower courts did not warrant interference. The court examined conflicting revenue reports and previous suits filed by the parties. It noted the principle that superintendence powers are not invoked for mere disagreement with lower court orders but require compelling circumstances of manifest injustice. Citing legal precedent, the court emphasized that certiorari is applicable only for clear errors of law, not for incorrect decisions. Ultimately, the court found no justification to overturn the lower courts' orders, upholding the trial court's decision and dismissing the petition.The judgment highlights the importance of factual accuracy and legal principles in property disputes. It underscores the limited scope of intervention under Article 227 and the need for compelling reasons to challenge lower court orders. The court's thorough analysis of conflicting evidence and previous litigation demonstrates a meticulous approach to resolving disputes. By emphasizing the need for manifest errors to warrant interference, the judgment upholds the integrity of judicial decisions and ensures consistency in legal proceedings. The detailed examination of revenue reports and past suits reflects a comprehensive review of the case, ensuring fairness and protection of parties' rights. Overall, the judgment exemplifies a judicious application of legal principles to adjudicate complex property disputes and uphold the rule of law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
