The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 8 of the Migrant Act of 1997 is limited to questions arising under the Act, and the court can deal with other questions not falling under the Act.

Hasnain Massodi, J.

1. Mohammad Ashraf Mir son of Wali Mohammad Mir resident of Chooru, presently Sopore, (Respondent No. 1 in Civil Revision No. 05/2012 and Petitioner in OWP No. 1559/2011) on 3rd May 1999, filed a Suit in the court of Sub Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate) Sopore for grant of Permanent Injunction decree, restraining defendants from interfering with his possession over the plot of land measuring 10 Kanals and 18 Marlas comprising Survey No. 474, situated at Baghat Tehsil Sopore ("disputed land", for short). He pleaded that he was owner in possession of 02 Kanals out of disputed land in terms of Gift Deed executed by original owner in his favour, registered on 5th May 1988. He claimed to have possession over rest of disputed land under power of attorney executed by original owners in his favour and registered by Sub Registrar, Jammu. The suit was resisted by defendants, inter alia, on the ground that the Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit under J & K Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997 (hereinafter "Migrant Act of 1997") and J & K Migrants (Stay of Proceedings) Act, 1997 (for short "Migrant Stay Act of 1997"). Defendant No. 1 -- Master Ghulam Mohammad Dar son of Abdul Khaliq Dar resident of Kralteng, Sopore -- petitioner in Civil Revision No. 05/2012 and Respondent No. 1 in OWP No. 1559/2011, disputed all factual averments made in plaint. It was pleaded that original owners had executed various documents pertaining to disputed property in his favour and plaintiff had no right or interest in suit property, and therefore, could not ask for relief sought in plaint.

2. It is pertinent to point out that disputed land admittedly is owned by S/Shri Kanya Lal and Som Nath son of Radha Krishan residents of Sangrampora, Sopore. There is no dispute between parties in this regard. However, parties in their pleadings stake rival claims to disputed land on the basis of documents stated to have been executed by original owners in their favour. Be that as it may, Learned Trial Judge on 13th December 1999, opined that suit was barred under Section 8 of Migrant Act of 1997. It was held that non-impleadment of original owners would not make suit maintainable.

3. Trial Court order dated 13th December, 1999, was question in Civil Revision No. 173/1999, OWP No. 50/2000 and 144/2001 before this Court. The order dated 13th December 1999 was set aside on 25th February 2002 and Trial Court directed to array, S/Shri Kanya Lal and Som Nath sons of Radhay Krishan, as defendants, accept their written statement and frame preliminary issue as regards applicability of Migrant Act of 1997. It may be pointed out that plaintiff in OWP No. 50/2000, questioned order of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sopore, on 7th April 1999, whereby powers were exercised under Migrant Act of 1997 qua disputed land. Defendant No. 3 (Som Nath) in OWP No. 144/2001 sought a direction to official respondents to act under provisions of Migrant Act of 1997 and take possession of disputed land through their attorney-defendant No. 1. Newly impleaded defendants appeared before Trial Court through counsel on 18th July 2002. Impleadment necessitated amendment to plaint. The plaint was amended, Kanya Lal and Som Nath shown as defendants 2 & 3. Parties further amended their pleadings in wake of developments subsequent to filing of suit.

4. The Trial Court on 27th July 2009, on perusal of pleadings, settled as many as fifteen issues. Issue No. 8 was treated as Preliminary Issue and in view of controversy raised, deserves to be noticed:

"8. Whether the trial of the suit is barred by the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Migrant's Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act 1997."

5. Learned Trial Judge on perusal of pleadings and hearing counsel for parties arrived at conclusion that suit land measuring 10 Kanals and 18 Marlas was equally co-shared by Kan