1. Judgment dated 11.07.2012, passed by the Court of District Judge, Ganderbal, in Civil 1st Appeal titled Abdul Rashid Baba & ors v. Haleema Bano & anr based on compromise of the parties, is sought to be quashed, by medium of this writ petition.

2. When learned counsel for the petitioners was confronted with the position that the judgment and decree is based on compromise, whether writ petition on alleged disputes which are factual in nature, can be maintained, learned counsel submitted that the appeal against such judgment and decree will not lay, that is why he has chosen to file writ petition but it can be treated as a revision petition. In support, placed reliance on the judgment captioned Nawab Shaqafath Ali Khan & ors v. Nawab Imdad Jah Bahadur & ors reported in (2009) 5 SCC 162. Para 48 of the judgment is relevant to be quoted:

"48. If the High Court had the jurisdiction to entertain either an appeal or a revision application or a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in a given case it, subject to fulfilment of other conditions, could even convert a revision application or a writ petition into an appeal or vice versa in exercise of its inherent power. Indisputably, however, for the said purpose, an appropriate case for exercise of such jurisdiction must be made out".

3. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this writ petition is treated as a revision petition, so has to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Section 115 CPC.

4. Factual background is that Late Abdul Salam Baba is survived by two daughters Mst. Hajira and Mst. Haleema. Mst. Haleema claimed the property left by the deceased in the capacity of "Khana-nisheen(resident daughter), to the exclusion of Mst. Hajira as being Khana-beeron daughter (married outside khana). This position gave rise to the litigation. Mst. Hajira filed suit for declaration, injunction and partition titled Mst. Hajira v. Haleema Bano & anr before the Court of Munsiff, Ganderbal.

5. On the basis of respective pleadings, as many as nine issues were framed:-

1. Whether the suit has been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPP

2. Whether the plaint has been verified by the plaintiff in accordance with law? OPP

3. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD

4. Whether the suit is hit by the provisions of Land Revenue Act and Agrarian Reforms Act, if so how? OPD

5. Whether the property mentioned in para 4 of the plaint belonged to late Abdul Salam Baba? OPD

6. Whether the suit property is jointly owned and possessed by the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and is un partitioned? OPP

7. Whether the suit property is liable to be partitioned by metes and bounds among parties to the suit? OPD

8. Whether the suit property has been properly described by the plaintiff? If not, what its effect on suit?

9. Relief? (OP parties)

6. On conclusion of the trial, the findings on issues Nos.1 to 4 were returned in favour of the plaintiff Mst. Hajira whereas findings on issue No.5 to 7 were returned in favour of defendants and finally suit has been dismissed vide judgment dated 19.06.2009. As against the said judgment and decree Civil First Appeal was filed before the Court of District Judge, Ganderbal. The learned District Judge vide detailed order dated 15.3.2012 observed that three issues have remained to be framed, as such, framed three additional issues i.e.

(1) Whether the house in dispute is the ancestral house of the parties as such plaintiff is entitled to inherit half of the house? (OPP)

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any share out of the survey Numbers 332,350,340,472/1 of village Pandach Ganderbal? (OPP)

(3) Whether the court lacks the jurisdiction to hear the suit of the partition for the Agrarian land? (OPD)

7. Finally learned District Judge concluded that in order to return finding on the additional issues framed, it shall be proper to direct the court below to receive additional evidence required for the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document