Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court was hearing three interlocutory applications in a pending special leave petition. I.A. No.6484 of 2018 sought vacation or modification of an order dated 15.12.2017 that imposed status quo in respect of properties allegedly owned by the petitioner, Ms. Ritika Awasty, and her husband, Mr. Virkaran Awasty. The applicants, Mr. Virender Awasty, Mrs. Veena Awasty, and Mrs. Urmil Tewari, claimed that the order affected their properties. I.A. No.10720 of 2018 sought impleadment of Mrs. Manju Awasty as an owner to enable her to file an affidavit. I.A. No.58055 of 2021 sought vacation of a restriction on the applicant, Mrs. Monica Gogia, to transfer another property, C-1/2, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, also allegedly owned by Ms. Ritika Awasty and her husband. The Court noted the history of the property 5/1, Vasant Vihar, which was purchased by Late Haridas Awasty in 1966, made part of an HUF, dissolved in 1990, and partitioned among four family members. After deaths, ownership devolved to the present occupants. The Court observed that the interlocutory applications were premature as the main special leave petition was still pending and the applicants had not been impleaded. The Court dismissed the applications without prejudice to the applicants' rights to seek appropriate remedies in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interlocutory Applications - Vacation of Status Quo - The applicants sought vacation/modification of status quo order dated 15.12.2017 in respect of properties allegedly owned by the petitioner. The Court held that the applications were premature as the main special leave petition was still pending and the applicants had not been impleaded. (Paras 1-2) B) Property Law - HUF Partition - Succession - The property 5/1, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi was originally purchased by Late Haridas Awasty in 1966, made part of HUF, dissolved in 1990, and partitioned among four family members. After deaths, ownership devolved to present occupants. (Paras 3-4) C) Civil Procedure - Impleadment - Third-Party Rights - I.A. No.10720 of 2018 sought impleadment of Mrs. Manju Awasty as owner. The Court did not decide on merits as the applications were dismissed as premature. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the interim order dated 15.12.2017 should be vacated or modified in respect of properties claimed by third parties, and whether the applicants should be impleaded as parties.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the interlocutory applications as premature, without prejudice to the applicants' rights to seek appropriate remedies in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Interlocutory applications
- vacation of status quo
- impleadment
- property dispute
- HUF partition
- mutation
- ownership rights
