Case Note & Summary
The present writ appeals arise out of a property dispute among siblings, being children of late P.R. Pallikondan. The appellant, Sri R.P. Krishnamurthy, filed the appeals challenging an interim order dated 25.8.2016 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos.11104-11105/2016, 12986/2016 and 16461-16462/2016. The Single Judge had directed status quo in respect of the suit property and appointed a receiver to take charge of the property pending disposal of the writ petitions. The appellant contended that he was in lawful possession and that the respondents had no right to seek ouster. The respondents, being other siblings and legal representatives, argued that the appellant had illegally occupied the property and was denying them their share. The Division Bench, comprising the Chief Justice and Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar, heard the appeals at the preliminary hearing stage. The Court noted that the impugned order was an interim measure aimed at preserving the property and preventing any party from being ousted. The Court found no perversity or jurisdictional error in the Single Judge's order warranting interference under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and the interim order was upheld. The Court also disposed of the pending interlocutory applications.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interim Orders - Status Quo - Appointment of Receiver - Dispute pertained to joint family property and allegations of ouster of one sibling by others - Single Judge directed status quo and appointed a receiver to preserve property - Division Bench held that such interim orders are discretionary and not perverse, and no interference is warranted in writ appeal - Held that the appeals are dismissed (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in passing an interim order directing status quo and appointing a receiver in a property dispute among siblings, and whether such order warrants interference in a writ appeal.
Final Decision
The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeals, upholding the interim order of the Single Judge directing status quo and appointment of receiver. The Court found no perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order.
Law Points
- Maintainability of writ appeal against interim order
- Appointment of receiver in property disputes
- Status quo orders in family property disputes
- Scope of interference in intra-court appeals
