Substantial construction on a demarcated transferred portion may continue despite a partition-suit status quo order.

Respondent no. 1 held a 13-decimal share in a 26-decimal suit property and transferred 12.5 decimals to the appellants by a deed accompanied by a plan depicting a demarcated portion.

The appellants obtained a sanction plan and began construction on the transferred portion; the Commissioner’s report recorded that 11 pillars had been constructed.

Respondent no. 1 later instituted a partition suit and obtained an order directing status quo. The appellants appealed that order.

Respondent no. 1 disputed consenting to the construction and sought demolition, alleging that it violated the status quo order.

The High Court modified the order on appeal.

Whether the status quo order should be modified to permit the appellants to complete construction on the portion transferred to them, having regard to the parties’ competing claims and the progress of construction.

Whether the appellants should be restrained from creating third-party interests in the property, and whether the appeal should affect the pending demolition application.

The Court applied the principles governing interim injunctive relief, weighing the balance of convenience and inconvenience and considering whether refusal of an injunction would cause irreparable injury.

It also considered the need to preserve the subject matter of a partition suit and the parties’ rights pending its determination.

The judgment cites no statute or precedent by name.

The Court found that the deed plan bore respondent no. 1’s signature and indicated an intention to transfer a demarcated portion, even though the property had not been partitioned by metes and bounds. It held that respondent no. 1 could not resile from that position at the interim stage.

The appellants had commenced substantial construction in reliance on the transfer, obtained sanction, and incurred expense; stopping the work at that advanced stage would substantially prejudice them, while respondent no. 1 would suffer no irreparable injury from its continuation.

Given the competing partition claims, however, the Court barred the appellants from creating third-party interests and made clear that the appeal would not determine the pending demolition application.

The appellants may complete construction but may not create third-party interests in the suit property until disposal of the suit.

If the constructed portion is ultimately allotted to another party, the appellants must demolish it at their own expense if directed by the trial court; they may claim no special equity for the construction.

The order remains subject to the outcome of respondent no. 1’s pending demolition application concerning the alleged breach of the status quo order.

CAN 1 of 2026 was disposed of, with no order as to costs.