I. The following four substantial questions of law have been framed by this court on 03-11-2000 for determination in this Civil Second Appeal:-

1. If the appellate court as final court of facts in absence of discussion and appreciation of Statements of witnesses lead by the parties can reverse the judgment of the trial court given on appreciation and discussion of evidence?

2. If in absence of formal admitting/accepting documents in evidence, reliance can be placed on such documents to of-set other evidence which under due procedure has come on record?

3. If in the facts and circumstances of this case, suit for injunction can lie interse co-sharers?

4. Whether the appellate court could give a relief for which no foundation is laid in the pleadings or for the relief which goes beyond the scope of the case pleaded and set up by a party?

II. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under:-

Subban Magray and Gh. Nabi Magray sons of Ismail Magray R/o GiliKadal Zoonimar, Srinagar (respondents) filed a suit for permanent injunction against Habibullah Magray and Mohd. Magray sons of Samad Magray R/o GiliKadal Zoonimar, Srinagar (appellants). It was alleged by the respondents that land measuring 2 Kanals and 3 Marlas under survey No. 1474 (19 Marlas) and 1475 Min (1 Kanal and 4 Marlas) situated at Mouza Zoonimar, Srinagar Tehsil Khas was in their possession and prior to them was in possession of their father since long and that the appellants had no right over the same. The respondents alleged that despite the fact that they were in peaceful possession of said piece of land the appellants interfere with their possession and intend to forcibly and without any right to occupy the same and try to snatch the possession from them. They, therefore, prayed that a decree for permanent injunction be passed in their favour and against the appellants directing them not to interfere in their possession on the suit land. The suit was heard by the 2nd Additional Munsiff Srinagar before whom the appellants in their written statement denied that the respondents were in possession of the land. They alleged that they were in possession of Khasra No. 1475 to the extent of 2 kanals and 5 marlas on the eastern side which also includes the suit property. They pleaded that their peaceful possession on the land is being fortified by the revenue record and that they have also constructed a residential house duly fenced after proper permission from Municipal Authority. According to the appellants the respondents have no title, claim, interest or right over the suit property as such the suit of the plaintiff was not maintainable.

III. The trial court framed as many as five issues in the case which were as under:-

1. Whether the suit property is in the possession of the plaintiffs? OPP

2. Whether the defendants are interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. OPP

3. Whether the decree has been passed by the City Munsiff with regard to the suit property and thus the suit is not maintainable? OPD.

4. Whether the defendants have constructed a house on the suit land? OPD

5. Relief

IV. The file reveals that the plaintiffs have recorded the statements of witnesses namely Syed Sharief-ud-din Sadiq Lone, Ghulam Mohd. Bhat. Besides the plaintiffs namely Subhan Magray appearing as his own witness in the case and has recorded his statement. The defendants have also recorded the statements of Gh. Ahmad Shiekh, Mohd. Sultan Dar, Mohd. Shafi Patwari and Abdul Rashid Bhat. Besides the defendant Gh. Mohd. Magray appearing as his own witness has recorded his statement.

V. After taking the evidence of the parties the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had failed to establish their possession over the suit land as such they were not entitled to any relief. Issue No. 1 which related to the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property was the main and the most important issue in the case which has been decided against the respondents. While analysing the o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document