1. The dispute in this case relates to land measuring 3 kanals and 12 marlas under survey No.141/2 min situate at Buchwara. Srinagar. The plaintiffs case in the plaint is that he had obtained the land on rent from the custodian Subsequently, the Custodian discovered that the land belonged to the Nazool Department and not to the Custodian. Thereafter, the Financial Commissioner offered to lease out the land to the plaintiff provided he agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000/- as premium in addition to the usual ground rent. The plaintiff did not accept the offer. His case, however, is that he continued to be in possession till the defendants started interfering with his possession. On the application of the plaintiff, the trial court of Sub Judge. C.J.M granted an exparte injunction. Subsequently, the order of injuction was vacated and defendant No 1 was permitted to raise the construction over the disputed land on his furnishing undertaking to the effect that in the event of the success of the plaintiff he would demolish the construction at his own cost. This order was passed on 12-12-1977. The plaintiff appealed. By his order dated 17-7-1978, the 2nd Additional District Judge upheld the order and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order, the plaintiff has come up in revision to this court.

2. The court below have concurrently found that there is no prima facie proof to show that the plaintiff was ever in possession of the disputed land. The argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner is that it was not open to the courts below to say so. He urged that on the pleadings the admitted position was that the plaintiff was in occupation though only was as a trespasser. For this, he relied upon Para No. 3 of the written statement filed on behalf of the state. But he forgets that the state was not the sole defendant. There were other defendants, as many as five. The principal defendant was J&K Muslim Auqaf Trust and four others who are the office bearers of the Auqaf Trust. The case of the Auqaf was that the possession belonged to Masjid Sharief Buchwara which is managed by the Trust. For this, they relied upon a letter No, EC-Notice/590-93 dated 30-11-1976 from the Assistant Commissioner, Nazool, to the Financial Commissioner as also a certificate bearing No. 63/ACM dated 5-5-1977 issued by the Assistant Commissioner Nazool Srinagar in which take state has conceded that the measuring 10 kanals, 9 marlas 56 sft comprising Khasra No. 41/2 Min situated at Buchwara is recorded in the possession of Masjid Sharief Buchwara as per Nazool survey records of 1968-69. therefore, the averment made in Para No. 3 of the written statement filed on behalf of the state could not be treated to the clinching so far as the controversy about the possession was concerned the courts below were justified in going into this controversy and determining same prima facie as they did. On facts found by them, the position is that the state is the owner of the disputed land whereas the other defendants including Auquf Trust are the parties claiming through the state. The question is whether the plaintiff can have temporary injunction against the owner state or the person claiming through it. The question is no longer res-intergra. In state of J&K versus Ghulam Rasool and anr. (1978 KLJ; 260) a learned single judge has considered this question and observed as under: -

"7. That relief of injunction is a discretionary relief is now well settled. A party before it can ask a court to exercise discretion in its favour must show that it has some equities in its favour which would impell a court to exercise discretion in its favour. In the alternative the party seeking injunction must possess some right which the opposite party is trying to invade whether contractual or otherwise in respect of which the opposite party is trying to commit a breach. These principles clearly emerge out of section 54 of the specific Relief Act which ordains in what circumstance

Click Here to Read the rest of this document