Page 1

1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 749 OF 2017

[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 33484 OF 2016 ] K. M. PRATAP                                 Apepllant(s)

                               VERSUS K. M. GOURISH AND ANR                        Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is before this Court aggrieved by the  interim  order  dated  12.09.2016  in  Civil  Misc. Appeal No. 559 of 2015 passed by the High Court of judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and  the  State  of  Andhra  Pradesh,  permitting  the respondents to proceed with the construction of the premises in question.

3. It is the apprehension of the appellant that in case  the  construction,  as  proposed  by  the respondents,  is  permitted,  it  would  complicate  the whole dispute, which is the subject matter of O.S.No. 1000  of  2014  on  the  file  of  the  XVI  Additional District  &  Sessions  Judge,  Malkajgiri,  Ranga  Reddy District, Telangana.

Page 2

2

4. The High Court, taking note of the undertaking given by the respondents that in case ultimately it is held that the disputed property does not fall to the share of the respondents, they will not claim any equity in respect of the construction already made and that they will demolish the construction on their own  costs  and  that  they  will  not  be  doing  any alienation  without  permission  from  the  Court, permitted the construction to proceed with.

5. When  the  matter  came  up  before  this  Court  on 25.11.2016, this Court passed the following order :-

“Learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner submits that since the property is yet to be divided by meets and bounds, in case the respondents start construction in the meanwhile,  it  will  only  create  an obstacle  to  the  proceedings  in  the partition.   Therefore,  unless  the property  is  demarcated  and  allotted  to their shares, the respondents cannot be permitted to carry out the construction in the property.

It appears that while passing the interim  order  the  High  Court  has  not taken note of this aspect.

In view of the above, issue notice, returnable on 04.01.2017.

There shall be stay of operation of the  impugned  order  passed  by  the  High

Page 3

3

Court, till the next date of hearing.”

6. Subsequently, it is brought to the notice of this Court  that  the  disputed  construction  undertaken  by the  respondents  is  half  way  through  and  it  is actually  meant  to  be  used  as  an  educational institution.

7. Having extensively heard Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellant and Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel appearing  for the  respondents, we  are of  the view that  the  interest  of  both  the  parties  can  be protected by issuing the following clarifications :-

(a) The respondents shall not create any third party rights in respect of the construction now being undertaken without express permission from the Trial Court.   (b) The  building  shall  not  be  used  for  any purpose,  even  after  the  completion,  without express permission from the Trial Court.   (c) In  case  it  is  ultimately  found  that  the property does not belong to the share of the respondents,  the  respondents  shall  not  be entitled to claim any equity in respect of the construction, which is now being made and that they  will  remove  the  entire  construction  at

Page 4

4

their own costs. Ordered accordingly.   

8. Subject  to  the  above  conditions,  the  interim order passed by this Court on 25.11.2016 is vacated, permitting  the  respondents  to  proceed  with  the construction.

9. We  are  informed  that  the  trial  has  already commenced.  Therefore, we request both the parties to cooperate for the expeditious disposal of the suit before the Trial Court.

10. With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

No costs.   .......................J.

             [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]  

.......................J.               [ A. M. KHANWILKAR ]  

New Delhi; January 20, 2017.