Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1146 (ALL)

Rama Shankar Tiwari v. State of U. P.

2014-04-09

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, DILIP GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dilip Gupta,J. The relief which the petitioner seeks is as follows: - “(1) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding to the police authorities to, forthwith put seal lock on the property in dispute (House no. 24/11, Tula Ram Bag Allahabad which was sealed/locked by the respondent no.4, S.H.O. P.S. George Town, Allahabad, since 07.12.2009 to till 27/11/2013), and put under lock and seal condition to the house in dispute (house no 24/11 Tula Ram Bag Allahabad), till the final decision of the ownership (title dispute) of the said property in dispute from the Court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Court No.8, District-Allahabad, being Original Suit No.1083 of 2010, filed by Shri Raj Kulshresth respondent no.5, against the State of Uttar Pradesh and the petitioner (Annexure No. 8 to this writ petition).” 2. The petitioner claims under a will of the testator Harsh Bardhan Kulshresth. His grievance is that upon the death of the testator, the house in dispute was under a lock in key and on 27 November, 2013, the possession was unlawfully taken by the sixth and seventh respondents. 3. The direction sought is to the police authorities to place the house under lock till the decision of a title dispute which is pending before the competent Civil Court. 4. The records would indicate that there are as many as five suits which are pending between the petitioner and the contesting private respondents. The issue of title and for that matter of possession cannot be determined in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Sufficient remedies are available including under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Even otherwise, proceedings under the ordinary civil law for such reliefs could be instituted before and determined by the competent Civil Court. The parties have already instituted proceedings which are pending before the Civil Court. 5. Hence, it would not be possible for this Court to interfere, particularly in order to resolve the disputed questions of fact. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.