SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(J&K) 318

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
J.P. Singh, J.
Noor Mohd. Bhat - Appellant
Versus
State & Ors. - Respondent
Civil Revision No. 145/2008 & IA(C) No. 443/2008
Decided On : 28 July, 2009

Advocates Appeared:
Advocate For Appellant: Altaf Haqani
Advocate For Respondent: M. Amin Khan

Comprehensive pleadings are required to demonstrate a prima-facie case of fabrication of registered documents.

Headnote:

Gifted Property - Property Dispute - - The court discussed the validity of a registered Gift Deed executed 22 years ago and the requirement for comprehensive pleadings to demonstrate a prima-facie case of fabrication of registered documents. The court found that the petitioner failed to make out a prima-facie case justifying issuance of injunctive directions against the respondents.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought declaration of ownership of a shop and a share of compensation from the property left by his father. The respondents contested based on a Gift Deed. The trial court issued directions to protect the petitioner's interests pending the suit.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a prima-facie case justifying injunctive directions against the respondents based on deficient pleadings.

Issues: Validity of the Gift Deed, Requirement for comprehensive pleadings to demonstrate fabrication of registered documents, Protection of petitioner's interests pending the suit

Ratio Decidendi: Comprehensive pleadings indicating facts and circumstances justifying annulment of questioned documents are required to demonstrate a prima-facie case of fabrication of registered documents.

Final Decision: The Revision Petition was dismissed.

1. The dispute between the parties to this Civil Revision Petition pertains to a single storied shop situated at Wazir Bagh, Srinagar, which is pleaded by the petitioner to have been gifted to him by his father, as also to the other shops for which respondent nos. 7 and 8 are alleged to have obtained gift from his father taking benefit of his ignorance.

2. The petitioner filed a suit seeking declaration that he is the absolute and exclusive owner of a single storied shop, and entitled to one third share of the compensation and other benefits likely to be awarded to the respondents by the Collector PWD Circular Road Project, Srinagar, in respect of the property left behind by his father, besides a declaration that the Gift Deed executed by his father in favour of respondent nos.7 and 8, on 31.03.1987 and registered on 15.06.1987, was a nullity, in the eyes of law.

3. The respondent nos. 7 to 9 contested the petitioners suit claiming rights in the property in question on the basis of the Gift Deed, questioned in the suit.

4. An application seeking injunctive directions against the respondents too was filed by the petitioner along with the suit.

5. The Trial Court disposed of the petitioners application vide its order of September 30, 2004, providing as follows:-

"In the instant case action of the non-applicant which is contended by the applicant is violative on his right is the disbursement of the compensation. However, the disbursement if permitted subject to the certain conditions in favour of the persons whom non-applicants 2 to 5 have found entitle, same in my opinion, would not subject the applicant to an injury of such a nature which cannot be remedied by way of money and destruction of the lis legigating before cannot take place. The applicant in substance seeks the compensation to be paid in his favour which he can seek even without any restrain to be put on non-applicant 7 to 9 from obtaining it from the non-applicants 2 to 5. In view of this, I am of the opinion that balance of convenience does not swings in favour of the applicant for restraining the non-applicants 2 to 5 permanently from making disbursement of compensation. The court has already on 5.3.2003 expressed its tentative opinion that non-applicant 2 to 5 can proceed further with regard to the allotment of the shop. In the written statement it is pleaded that alternate of the shop has already provided to the non-applicants, only the restrain had been asked to be placed on the non-applicants 2 to 5 from alienating shop and not the disbursement of the compensation in the motion for grant of interim relief.

Accordingly restraint put on non-applicants 2 to 5 on 5.3.2003 from disbursing the compensation needs to be discharged. However for safe guarding the interest of the applicant pending disposal of the suit, it is ordered that compensation if any disbursed in favour of the non-applicants 7 to 9 same shall be subject to the outcome of the suit. Non-applicants shall file an undertaking before the court that in case the applicant succeeds at trial, the non-applicant 7 to 9 would reimburse in lump of the amount of compensation, if any found due to the applicant at culmination of the suit."

6. Petitioners appeal against the trial courts order aforementioned has been dismissed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Srinagar vide his order of September 30, 2008.

7. Questioning the findings of the two courts, the petitioners learned counsel, Mr. A.Haqani, submitted that both the courts below have erred in holding that there was no prima-facie case in favour of the petitioner, warranting issuance of injunctive directions against the respondent nos. 7 to 9 to get the benefits on the basis of the Gift Deed which had been questioned by him in the suit, in that, the petitioners pleadings did make out a prima-facie case justifying issuance of interim directions. Learned counsel further submitted that the expression "prima-facie case" requisite for issuance of interim directi










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top