When Status Quo Order Is Passed Over Possession Of Suit Property, Party In Possession Can Raise Construction On Their Share: J&K High Court
The Jammu and Kashmir Highcourt held that where the status quo order passed by the court is qualified by the word "possession" and not a blanket status quo order, there is no restraint on the parties to the suit on raising construction on the portion of property which is in their respective possession.The petitioner had challenged the order passed by the trial court allowing the respondent...
The Jammu and Kashmir Highcourt held that where the status quo order passed by the court is qualified by the word "possession" and not a blanket status quo order, there is no restraint on the parties to the suit on raising construction on the portion of property which is in their respective possession.
The petitioner had challenged the order passed by the trial court allowing the respondent party to raise construction on the suit property stating that same amounted to changing the nature of the suit property.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that what has been protected by the interim order is the possession of the parties over the suit property while also allowing the agricultural activities on spot without making any act of waste.
The court added that therefore raising of construction by the party does not violate the interim order by any way as the same is raised in the area under their possession.
The court also added that had it been the blanket status quo order then the situation would have been different.
The court pointed out that considering the above interim order passed by the trial court it was not necessary for the respondent to file separate application seeking permission to raise construction on their respective property however by way of abundant caution the motion was placed and court passed the order granting permission for the same.
The counsel for the petitioner raised the contention that such raising of the construction on the suit property will change the nature of property.
The court however responded that such arguments can be addressed only if the petitioner is able to obtain an order of status quo from the trial court with regard to construction on the suit property.
The court added that if the separate order allowing the construction is set-aside there was nothing stopping the respondent from raising the construction in the first place as the orginal interim order passed by the trial court does not bar such construction.
BACKGROUND
The petitioner has approached the High Court under Article 227 to challenge a trial court order allowing respondent to construct a house on part of a disputed property.
The petitioner had filed a civil suit claiming joint ownership of ancestral land and seeking its partition and separate possession. She alleged that the property was never partitioned and that fraudulent mutations had been recorded without her knowledge.
The defendants admitted the shared ancestry but claimed the property had been partitioned long ago and that the petitioner had received cash in lieu of her share. During the suit the respondent sought permission to construct on a portion the land claimed to be in his possession exclusively.
The trial court granted permission and allowed construction. The petitioner now seeks to set-aside the said order.
APPEARANCE
R. A. Jan, Sr. Advocate, Adil Mushtaq, Advocate For Petitioner
Arif Sikandar, Advocate, Mir Umer, Advocate For Respondents
Case-Title: Mst Zoona Begum vs Ghulam Mohammad Sheikh & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 210