Supreme Court Appoints Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia As Mediator In Family Dispute

The Supreme Court today(February 2) appointed Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, a former judge of the Supreme Court, as a mediator in a long-drawn property dispute between a brother and sisters dating back to 2014

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, after Justice Dhulia was appointed, expressed a sign of relief that this litigation will finally be resolved. 

Senior Advocate NK Kaul submitted that when he had applied for permission, there was no litigation between the brother and the sister. He added that the Memorandum of Understanding(MoU) signed with the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation was also before the injunction order was passed. 

Kaul emphasised that his client is willing to settle the dispute with his sister. On this, Justice Pardiwala suggested that parties should go for mediation.

Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamath (appearing for the sister) submitted that the parties had already undergone mediation before Justice Balasubramaniam, but it failed.  

The Court ordered:

"Heard Mr Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner brother and Mr Kamath, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent 2-4(sisters). We also heard learned Mr Pahwa, senior counsel, for development Respondent 6. This is a long drawn legal battle between the brother and the sisters. Although in the past, the parties did try to reach an amicable settlement, we are informed that the mediation failed. 

We are still of the firm view that parties should sit and talk and reach an equitable settlement. Otherwise, this is going to be a long drawn legal proceeding. We appointed Hon'ble Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, former judge of this Court, to act as a mediator between the parties. Fees and other modalities shall be fixed in consultation with the parties. Status quo as regards to nature, character and possession of property."

As per brief facts, the brother Ravindranath claims to be the owner of the 4461 sq of land, which he claims was bequeathed by his father through a will deed dated December 29, 1999. He filed an application in 2014 seeking permission for the construction of a building. But even before the application was processed, his sisters filed a suit seeking partititon and separate possession. The developer with whom the brother was to sign the MoU also got impleaded as a party.

The Civil Court granted an injunction in favour of the sisters, restraining the brother from alienating the suit schedule properties and from changing its physical character. Subsequently, the family arrived at a settlement, but the petitioner was granted a building permission order in 2020 for the construction. Against this, the sisters filed a complaint alleging that the petitioner resorted to suppression and misrepresentation of facts, as he did not disclose the pendency of a civil suit and the settlement the family had arrived at. The petitioner approached the Telangana High Court to dismiss this. 

But the High Court agreed that there was suppression of material facts and rejected his plea.

Case Details: R. RAVINDRANATH Vs THE GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION|D No. 69099/2025