1. This is a petition under section 104 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir.

2. Heard. I have perused the record.

3. Facts essential for disposal of this petition are that Petitioner (plaintiff) has filed a suit in the Court of learned Munsiff, Katra for permanent prohibitory injunction retraining respondents (defendants) from causing interference in his ownership and exclusive possession of land measuring 1 kanal comprised in Khasra No. 570/205 min situate at Katra and further restraining them from obstructing or causing hindrance in his user and enjoyment of the suit land.

3.1. Case set up by petitioner before the trial Court is that land measuring 2 kanals and 10 marlas comprised in Khasra No. 570/205 min was purchased by his father late Sh. Baij Nath vide a sale deed registered on 02.09.1964. After death of his father, the said land devolved upon him, his mother, two brothers and three sisters. His mother, brothers and sisters, however, gifted their share in the said land extending up to 1 kanal and 10 marlas to him by virtue of gift deeds dated 27.09.2003 and 30.09.2003. He has constructed his house in 10 marlas of the said land and remaining 1 kanal of land thereof has been properly fenced by him. He has alleged in the plaint that the respondents taking advantage of the contiguity of their land with the said 1 kanal of land (suit land) had tried to encroach upon and have been interfering with this land without any right or title.

3.2. Respondents (defendants) have opposed the suit. They contended in their written statement that Ghansham Dass, who was the grandfather of the petitioner and respondents 2, 3 and 4 and Mansa Ram were real brothers. Land measuring 2 kanals and 10 marlas was purchased by them out of the joint family funds benami in the name of the father of the petitioner. Later by a family settlement, which was recorded in the form of a memorandum of settlement on 28th Magh 2022 Bk, one and a half kanals of this land was given in share to Ghansham Dass and the remaining one kanal to Mansa Ram. They have contended further that on the same day three sons of Ghansham Dass, that is, father of the petitioner, father of respondents 2 to 4 and respondent No. 5 occupied 10 marlas of land each out the land having fallen to the share of Ghansham Dass in which they have constructed their respective guest houses. Respondents' contention as regards the suit land is that this is the one kanal of land, which had fallen to the share of Mansa Ram but was never occupied by him and continued in the possession of the respondents 2 to 4 since Magh, 2022 Bk. Access to this land is only from the house of respondents 2 to 4 and they have constructed a shed and water tank on the suit land.

3.3. On filing of the suit, learned trial Court initially by an ad interim injunction temporarily restrained the respondents from interfering with the ownership and possession of the petitioner (plaintiff) over the suit land and subsequently, after hearing both sides, learned trial Court by its order dated 13.08.2010 confirmed the ad interim injunction and directed the respondents not to interfere in peaceful possession and ownership of the appellant over the suit land.

3.4. Respondents questioned the order of the learned trial Court dated 13.08.2010 in Civil 1st Miscellaneous Appeal No. 19 before the learned District Judge, Reasi. Learned appellate Court after hearing both sides and perusal of record on the trial Court file, allowed the appeal vide order dated 22.12.2012 and modified the order passed by the trial Court by directing both the parties to maintain status quo qua the suit land till final disposal of the suit. Learned District Judge pointed out that the trial Court in a way has pronounced judgment regarding ownership and possession of the plaintiff qua the suit land, which was not permissible while adjudicating upon an application for temporary injunction. Having regard to respective pleadings, learned District Judge observed that questio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document