1. Civil 2nd Appeals 14 of 2003 and 15 of 2003 arise from identical judgments and have been admitted for hearing on identical question of law, that reads as under:

Whether suit was barred by provisions of section 139 of Land Revenue Act, 1996 Svt. (1939-AD) ?

2. The background facts may be summarized in the first instance.

3. The respondents 9.7.2003 filed two civil suits in the Court of Ld. Sub Judge Budgam registered as 46-A/Numbri and 46-B/Numbri. The averments made in the suits were identical. In suit No. 46-A/Numbri the respondents claimed to be owners in possession of a plot of land measuring 8 kanal and 12 marlas comprising of survey No. 145/1 min khewat No.233 min situated at estate Rawalpora Tehsil Budgam (Suit land for short). The respondents averred that Shri Gh. Mohammad Najar S/o Razak Najar R/o Bhagwanpora, Rawalpora (proforma respondents) on 30.6.1989 pursuant to a conspiracy hatched with Tehsildar Settlement Chadoora got an area measuring 4 kanal 12 marlas out of aforesaid plot entered in the revenue record in his favour and that on appeal the order of Tehsildar settlement was set aside by Assistant Commissioner Budgam vide order dated 30.10.1989. The respondents, it is averred, as such continued to remain in possession of the said plot of land. The respondents pleaded that the proforma respondent in connivance with the appellant to dispossess the respondents from the suit land with a criminal intention, executed a sale deed on 12.9.1989 registered on 11.12.1989 in respect of an area measuring two kanals out of the suit land in favour of the appellant. It was pleaded that as the proforma respondent was not owner in possession of the suit land or any part thereof including the part that form subject matter of the sale deed in question, the sale deed deserved to be declared null and void.

4. In civil suit 46-B/Numbri, the respondents after making the identical averments insisted that the proforma respondent had without any right including the propriety right over the suit land or any part thereof, executed a sale deed for an area measuring 2 kanals out of the suit land in favour of the appellant.

5. The respondents in both the civil suites prayed for grant of declaratory decree declaring the sale deeds executed by proforma respondent in favour of the appellant on 12.9.1989 and registered on 9.12.1989 and 11.12.1989 respectively, as null and void. The respondents also prayed for grant of a permanent injunction decree restraining the appellant and proforma respondents from interfering with respondents possession over the suit land.

6. The appellant opted to stay away from the proceedings and was set ex-parte. The proforma respondent after filing written statement, absented himself from the proceedings and was proceeded exparte. Ld. Trial Judge after recording respondents evidence in ex-parte decreed the suit. The appellant before this court, filed an appeal against the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 31.3.2000 in the court of Ld. Principal District Judge Budgam. The appeals were partly allowed and as regards the relief, other than the relief of declaratory decree declaring the sale deeds null and void, were set aside.

7. The First Appellate Court held that the sale deeds impugned in the Civil Suits, executed by the proforma respondent in favour of appellants whereunder propriety rights were transferred, to be unauthorized, ineffective and bad ab-initio. The Ist. Appellate Court proceeded to observe that the impugned decree was correct, though for reason quite different from reasons, it was based upon. However, the Ist. Appellant Court held the trial court to have no jurisdiction in terms of section 25 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, to grant a permanent injunction decree in as much as the subject matter of the suit was agricultural land within the meaning of the J&K Agricultural Reforms Act 1976.

8. It needs to be recalled that Ld. Trial Judge declared the sale deeds, executed by proforma respondent in favour of the appell

Click Here to Read the rest of this document