REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.11759 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 30465 of 2017)

Roshina T            ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Abdul Azeez K.T. & Ors.    ….Respondent(s)      

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment

and order dated 30.08.2017  passed by the  High

Court of  Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Petition (C)

No. 15385/2017  whereby the Division Bench of the

1

High Court allowed the writ petition filed by

respondent No.1 herein and directed the appellant

herein, by issuing a writ of mandamus, to restore

the possession of the flat in question to respondent

No.1 herein.

3. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.

They, however, need mention in brief  infra  to

appreciate the short question involved in this

appeal.

4. The dispute essentially relates to the

possession of a flat bearing No. 3D, 3rd  floor located

in building known as Royal Court­Block IV at

Kozhikode (hereinafter referred to as “the flat”) and

is between the appellant and respondent No. 1

herein.

5. Respondent  No.  1 filed  a  writ  petition  being

W.P.(C) No. 15385 of 2017 before the High Court of

Kerala against the appellant herein and other

2

respondents(local police authorities) seeking therein

a relief of restoration of his possession over the flat

in question. The appellant contested the writ

petition on various factual and legal grounds

including raising an objection about the

maintainability  of the writ  petition and the reliefs

claimed therein.

6. By impugned order, the Division Bench

allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant

(respondent No. 5 in the writ petition) to restore the

possession of the flat in question to respondent No.

1 herein (writ petitioner  in the High Court)  which

has given rise to filing of the present appeal by way

of special leave by respondent  No. 5 of the  writ

petition in this Court.

7. The short question, which arises for

consideration  in this  appeal, is  whether the  High

Court was justified in entertaining the writ petition

3

filed by respondent No. 1 herein and Secondly,

whether the High Court was justified in issuing a

mandamus against the appellant  directing him to

restore the possession of the flat to respondent

No. 1.

8. Heard Mr.  Haris  Beeran, learned counsel for

the appellant and  Mr.  R. Basant, learned senior

counsel, Mr. A.K. Joseph and Mr. Nishe Rajen

Shonker, learned counsel for the respondents.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

are constrained to allow the appeal,  set aside the

impugned order and dismiss the writ petition filed

by respondent No. 1 herein out of which this appeal

arises.

10. In our considered opinion, the  writ petition

filed by the respondent No. 1 under Article 226/227

of the  Constitution of India  against the  appellant

4

before the High Court for grant of relief of

restoration of the possession of the flat in question

was not maintainable and the same ought to have

been dismissed in limine as being not maintainable.

In other words, the High Court ought to have

declined to entertain the writ petition in exercise of

extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of

Constitution for grant of reliefs claimed therein.   

11. It  is not in dispute that the reliefs for which

the writ petition was filed by respondent No. 1

herein against the appellant pertained to possession

of the flat.   It is also not in dispute that one Civil

Suit No. 807/2014 between the appellant and the

respondent No. 1 in relation to the flat in question

for grant of injunction was pending in the Court of

Munsif at Kozhikode. It is also not in dispute that

the appellant and the respondent No. 1 are private

individuals and  both are claiming their rights of

5

ownership and possession over the flat in question

on various factual grounds.

12. In the light of such background facts arising in

the case, we are of the considered opinion that the

filing of the writ petition by respondent No. 1 herein

against the appellant herein under Article 226/227

of the Constitution of India in the High Court, out of

which this appeal arises, was wholly misconceived.  

13. The question as to who is the owner of the flat

in  question,  whether respondent  No.  1  was/is in

possession of the flat and, if so, from which date,

how and in what circumstances, he claimed to be in

its possession, whether his possession could be

regarded as legal or not qua its real owner etc. were

some of the material questions which arose for

consideration in the writ petition.  

14. These questions, in our view, were pure

questions of fact and could be answered one way or

6

the other only by the Civil Court in a properly

constituted civil suit and on the basis of the

evidence adduced by the parties but not in a writ

petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

by the High Court.  

15. It has been consistently held by this Court that

a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for

settlement of the disputes relating to property rights

between the private persons. The remedy under

Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available

except where violation of some statutory duty on the

part of statutory authority is alleged. In such cases,

the Court has jurisdiction to issue appropriate

directions to the authority concerned. It is held that

the High Court cannot allow its constitutional

jurisdiction to be  used for deciding disputes, for

which remedies under the general law, civil or

criminal are available. This Court has held that it is

7

not intended  to replace the  ordinary remedies  by

way of a civil suit or application available to an

aggrieved person. The jurisdiction under Article 226

of the Constitution being special and extraordinary,

it should not be exercised casually or lightly on

mere asking by the litigant. (See Mohan Pande vs.

Usha Rani,  1992 (4) SCC 61 and  Dwarka Prasad

Agrawal vs BD Agrawal, (2003) 6 SCC 230).

16. In our view, the  writ  petition to claim such

relief was not, therefore, legally permissible. It,

therefore, deserved dismissal in  limine  on the

ground  of availability of an  alternative remedy  of

filing a civil suit by respondent No. 1 (writ

petitioner) in the Civil Court.

17. We cannot, therefore, concur with the

reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High

Court when it unnecessarily went into all the

8

questions of fact arising in the case on the basis of

factual pleadings in detail (43 pages) and recorded a

factual finding that it was the respondent No. 1 (writ

petitioner)  who was  in possession of the  flat  and,

therefore, he be restored with his possession of the

flat by the appellant.  

18. In our opinion, the High Court, therefore, while

so directing exceeded its extraordinary jurisdiction

conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Indeed, the High Court in granting such relief, had

virtually converted the writ petition into a civil suit

and itself to a Civil Court. In our view, it was not

permissible.   

19. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1,

however, strenuously urged that the impugned

order does not call for any interference because the

High Court has proceeded to decide the writ petition

on admitted facts.  

9

20. We do not agree with the submissions of

learned counsel for respondent No.1 for the reasons

that first there did exist a dispute between the

appellant and respondent No. 1 as to who was in

possession  of the flat in  question  at the relevant

time; Second, a dispute regarding possession of the

said flat between the two private individuals could

be decided only by the Civil Court in civil suit or by

the Criminal Court in Section 145 Cr.P.C

proceedings but not in the writ petition under

Article 226 of the Constitution.

21. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are

unable to agree with the reasoning and the

conclusion arrived at by the High Court in the

impugned order.  

22. As a consequence, the appeal succeeds and is

accordingly  allowed. Impugned order is set  aside.

10

The writ petition filed by respondent No. 1, out of

which this appeal arises, stands dismissed.

23. Liberty  is,  however, granted to the parties to

file civil proceedings in the Civil Court for claiming

appropriate reliefs in relation to the flat in question

for adjudication of their respective claims.

24. We, however, make it clear that while

prosecuting  any civil/criminal  proceedings  by the

parties, as the case may be, any observations and

the findings recorded by the High Court in the

impugned order will not be looked into because the

impugned order  has  since  been set  aside  by this

Court.    

  ………...................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

                                  …...……..................................J.                        [INDU MALHOTRA]

New Delhi; December 03, 2018  

11