Revision petitioner/plaintiff filed injuction suit in the court of Munsiff Sub Registrar, Srinagar. Alongwith an application was moved for grant of interim relief in the nature of restraining and injucting the defendants (respondents to the revision ) from interfering with the possession of plaintiff-applicant over the suit property. The initial direction was confirmed subsequently after the otherside filed objections by order June 16, 2003. Defendants filed an appeal against the order. The additional District Judge, Srinagar by order dated 30.9.2003 accepted the appeal and has set aside the order of the court below. Against this order the present revision petition is filed.

On 7.4.2004 during the course of the arguments counsel for the parties in the circumstances referred in the order sought two days time to come with the compromise deed. However, when the matter was taken up on board today the counsel for the parties presented their respective compromise drafts. Strangely, neither counsel accepted nor consented to draft prepared by the other counsel/otherside. having failed to arrive at a settlement/compromise, the matter after concluding the arguments is taken up for final disposal.

2. Orders of the trial court as also the appellate court have been perused. Record is also examined.

3. It is not far away to find from record that the suit property is purchased by the plaintiff Mohd.Afzal Shah from one Gh.Nabi Rather. The said Gh.Nabi Rather had purchased the property from his predessors-in-title Mohd. Maqbool & Ors by a sale deed executed and registered on 13.1.1981. In this sale deed as also site plan attached to the sale deed it is clearly shown that the title on spot with structure is over 1425 Sqft. and the egress and ingress to grave yard is distinctively marked on the Easter side of the land. Gh.Nabi Rather has sold this land and structure to plaintiff Mohd. Maqbool Shah, by sale deed executed on 27.4.2000 and registered on 15.5.2000. In this sale deed the extent of the land in SFT is now shown as 1740.3 sft/ and the site plan shows that the pathway to grave-yard is omitted though a strip of land measuring 59" on North and 5 .3" on southern side and 31 .9" in length is shown on the eastern side of the site plan. The said Gh.Nabi Rather predecessor-in-title of plaintiff has appeared before the Commissioner appointed by the court and has stated that he has only sold 1425.6 sft of land to plaintiff. This land admeasuring 1425.6 sfts he himself purchased from his predecessor-in-title Mohd. Maqbool Shah and Ors. The Commissioner who went for the spot inspection and investigation clearly stated that the strip of land used as path-way to connect a public lane to the grave-yard and shrine of Akram Shah on spot at Shammpora Nowhatta Srinagar did exist and was used for egress and ingress by the concerned to enter and come out of grave-yard and the shrine althrough till about 1&1/2 month earlier to filing of instant suit for injuction before court below.

Even the ex-owner and predecessor-in-title of the revision petitioner has before the Commissioner unequivocally stated that the path-way did so exist and was preserved on spot for access to the Shrine and grave-yard. The appellate court has also noted that recording of excess land of about 315.3 sft. by plaintiff, is managed clandestinely on distortion of facts. The existence and removal of wooden door at entrance point on the strip of land used for passage and path-way to Shrine and grave-yard and its use for ingress and egress is prima- facie amde out from Commissioners report. First blocking the passage and managing to enclose it forcibly, and then misusing and abusing the process of law to perpetuate tha act of forcible occupation of the passage, is pointedly and distinctly noted by the appellate court from record. The appellate court has also on material found that the plaintiff has approached the court with unclean hands with the purpose and object of perpetrating his action of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document