Mehul Mahendra Thakkar @ Karia Vs. Meena Mehul Thakkar @ Karia
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.1788 of 2009
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22196 of 2007]
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22196 of 2007]
Petitioner: Mehul Mahendra Thakkar @ Karia
Respondent: Meena Mehul Thakkar @ Karia
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.1788 of 2009
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22196 of 2007]
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22196 of 2007]
Judges: Tarun Chatterjee & H.L. Dattu, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 23, 2009
Head Note:
Practice and Procedure
Family court concluding that husband and wife are the joint owners of flat – High Court directing court receiver to take possession of flat from husband and induct wife – Justification. Held it is unsustainable. It is settled legal position, that by way of interim relief, final relief should not be granted till the matter is decided one way or the other. (Para 5)
Family court concluding that husband and wife are the joint owners of flat – High Court directing court receiver to take possession of flat from husband and induct wife – Justification. Held it is unsustainable. It is settled legal position, that by way of interim relief, final relief should not be granted till the matter is decided one way or the other. (Para 5)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The order passed by the High Court of Bombay in Civil Application No. 238 of 2007 filed in Family Court Appeal No. 128 of 2007 dated 5.10.2007 is the subject matter of this appeal.
3. By the impugned order, the court has directed the Court Receiver to take possession of the flat from the appellant and induct respondent-wife in the flat during the pendency of the appeal.
4. In the appeal filed, the appellant has called in question the correctness or otherwise of the findings and the conclusion reached by the Family Court in Petition No. A-1072/2000 dated 6.2.2007, wherein the Family Court has reached the conclusion that both the husband and wife are joint owners of flat bearing No. 303, Rajesh Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Borivali (West), Mumbai.
5. Even before giving a verdict on the findings and the conclusions reached by the Family Court, by way of interim relief, the court has granted the main relief itself. This, in our opinion is unsustainable. It is settled legal position, that by way of interim relief, final relief should not be granted till the matter is decided one way or the other.
6. In view of the above, we allow this
appeal and set aside the order by the High Court in Family Court Appeal No. 128 of 2007 dated 5th day of October, 2007. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances
of this case, we request the court to dispose of the appeal as early as possible and at any rate within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this court’s
order.
1. Leave granted.
2. The order passed by the High Court of Bombay in Civil Application No. 238 of 2007 filed in Family Court Appeal No. 128 of 2007 dated 5.10.2007 is the subject matter of this appeal.
3. By the impugned order, the court has directed the Court Receiver to take possession of the flat from the appellant and induct respondent-wife in the flat during the pendency of the appeal.
4. In the appeal filed, the appellant has called in question the correctness or otherwise of the findings and the conclusion reached by the Family Court in Petition No. A-1072/2000 dated 6.2.2007, wherein the Family Court has reached the conclusion that both the husband and wife are joint owners of flat bearing No. 303, Rajesh Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Borivali (West), Mumbai.
5. Even before giving a verdict on the findings and the conclusions reached by the Family Court, by way of interim relief, the court has granted the main relief itself. This, in our opinion is unsustainable. It is settled legal position, that by way of interim relief, final relief should not be granted till the matter is decided one way or the other.
6. In view of the above, we allow this
appeal and set aside the order by the High Court in Family Court Appeal No. 128 of 2007 dated 5th day of October, 2007. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances
of this case, we request the court to dispose of the appeal as early as possible and at any rate within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this court’s
order.
