1. This Civil First Miscellaneous Appeal by defendants 1 to 3 is directed against the order dated 29th December, 2011 (for short 'impugned order' herein) passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Srinagar, in an application moved by the Plaintiffs, Respondents 1 & 2 herein, in a suit titled Arif Ahmad Shah and another v. Masood Ahmad Shah and others.

2. It appears that respondents 1 & 2 filed a suit for injunction and recovery of rent. Along side the suit, an application was made for grant of ad interim relief, on the ground that the defendants-appellants and plaintiffs respondents 1 & 2 are joint owners of a three storied house with attic and the land underneath and appurtenant, thereto measuring about three Kanals, bearing Plot No. 41, situate at Gogji Bagh, Srinagar, which is in possession of defendant No. 4 on rent basis in terms of the lease deed dated 06.10.1989 executed by plaintiff No. 1 and defendants 1 and 2. The pleadings reveal that plaintiffs and defendants are having fifty percent share each in the suit property in terms of registered sale deed and gift deed. Fifty percent of the said property was acquired by respondent No. 1 and the remaining was acquired by defendants 1 & 2, i.e., appellants herein. Lease in favour of the defen#31;dant-Bank (defendants 4 and 5) was extended from time to time. In the year 2002, while extending the lease, defendants 1 and 2 inducted defendant No. 3 as one of the lessors and plaintiff No. 1 inducted his mother, i.e., plaintiff No. 2, as one of the lessors. In terms of Gift deed and sale deed, plaintiff No. 1 and defendant Nos. 1 & 2, i.e., the original lessors alone, are entitled to profits of the leased property to the extent of fifty percent each as per their shares in the property, but defendants 4 to 6, i.e., respondents 3 to 5 herein have in an arbitrary manner released the rent of the property to the extent of only 40% in favour of the plaintiffs, i.e., respondents 1 & 2, and sixty percent in favour of defendants No. 1 to 3, i.e., appellants herein. Plaintiffs objected to the same and requested defendant nos. 4 to 6 to release 50 percent of the rent in their favour and, on their failure to abide by the request, they filed the instant suit for a decree of permanent injunction against defendants 4 to 6, i.e., respondents 3 to 5 herein, not to disburse the rent in excess of fifty percent in favour of defendants 1 & 2, i.e., appellants 1 & 2 herein, and also for a decree of permanent injunction directing the defendants-respondents 4 to 6 to pay fifty percent of the rent to the defendants 1 to 3 and further for a decree of recovery of rent of 10 percent paid in excess to defendants 1 to 3, i.e., the appellants herein from the year 2002 till date.

3. The defendants, i.e., appellants herein have resisted the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs, i.e. respondents 1 & 2 herein, cannot claim recovery of unpaid rent from the year 2002 as the same is time barred and that, in terms of the mandate of the limitation Act, a suit for recovery of money can be brought within three years and any suit brought after the time frame is time barred. It is stated that since the plaintiffs, respondents 1 & 2 herein, have made a claim to the unpaid rent from 2002, the suit, therefore, is time barred. It is further stated that the defendants-appellants are owners in possession of the suit property to the extent of 66.66 percent and the plaintiffs, respondents 1 & 2 herein, to the extent of 33.34 percent thereof. The rent was being paid to the plaintiffs and defendants by a single advice who used to apportion the same in-between. In the year 1992, plaintiff No. 2 was inducted as one of the lessor along with defendant No. 3 and it was agreed that the rent shall be proportionately divided among all the five lessors and the plaintiffs would jointly receive 33.34 percent and remaining 6.66 percent was also agreed to be paid to the plaintiffs out of love and affection and thus the plaintiffs were paid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document