A decree for permanent injunction cannot be granted when the suit property is not properly described and identified, and when there is no evidence of interference with the plaintiffs' possession.

Muzaffar Hussain Attar, J.

1. This Civil 2nd Appeal is admitted to hearing on the following substantial questions of law:-

(a) Whether a decree for permanent injunction can be passed by the Civil Court when the suit property is not described in the plaint, more so, when the survey number comprises of more land than that to have been claimed to be in possession of the plaintiffs/respondents.

(b) Whether a decree for permanent injunction can be granted when there is no evidence to show that any interference is caused in the possession of the plaintiffs/respondents.

2. Notice.

3. Notice accepted by Mr. Zubair Ahmad.

4. At request of learned counsel for the parties, this Civil 2nd Appeal is taken up for final disposal.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at great length.

6. The plaintiffs/respondents instituted civil original suit which landed in the court of 2nd Subordinate Civil Judge (Passenger Tax), Srinagar against the appellants. It is pleaded in the plaint that the respondents are joint owners in possession of land measuring 2 kanals 17 marlas comprising under Khasra No. 199/100 situated at Mouza Devipora Zakoora, Srinagar. It is also pleaded in the plaint that the appellants/defendants, who have allegedly purchased the land adjacent to the land of the plaintiffs, are unnecessarily causing obstruction and interference with their peaceful possession of the land. It is for this reason that prayer was made for grant of decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants restraining them permanently from causing any obstruction/interference with plaintiffs' peaceful possession over the land measuring two kanals 17 marlas comprising under khasra No. 199/100 min situated at Mouza Devipora, Zakoora Srinagar. It was also prayed that defendants, their agents and servants be restrained from causing any damage to the barbed wire fencing of the plaintiffs around their land.

7. The appellants, in their written statement filed before the trial court, have stated that plaintiff no. 1 (Gh. Qadir Lone) was landlord owning more than 20 kanals of land up to year 1991. It is also pleaded that out of this estate he sold land to different persons by different transactions. It is also pleaded that after selling the land he fell short of some land and accordingly approached the revenue authorities for fresh measurement/demarcation of his erstwhile estate. It is also pleaded that after demarcation it was found by the revenue authorities that some vendors of the plaintiff No. 1 were in excess possession of land than what they had purchased. The details are also given about excess possession of land. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff No. 1 sold 3 kanals of land to one Gh. Rasool, who in turn sold the same to Abdul Samad Khan and his brothers by virtue of sale deed executed on 30th August, 2001 which land was thereafter sold by the said purchasers in favour of the defendants 1 and 2 by virtue of sale deed executed on 28th November, 2005 which stands duly registered. It is pleaded in the written statement that the plaintiffs/respondents have fenced their land, which is adjacent to that land of defendants/appellant. It is also pleaded that some portion of the land of the plaintiffs has come under the road. It is specifically pleaded that defendants are only in possession of their own land which is supported by the revenue records. It is also pleaded that defendants have laid foundation of plinth around their land after due permission from the Municipal Authorities and they are not causing any kind of interference to the possession of plaintiffs' in respect of suit land. The learned trial court after concluding the trial of the suit dismissed the same.

8. The 1st Appellate Court after setting aside the decree and judgment of the trial court allowed the suit of the plaintiffs and passed decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the appellants/respondents.

9. The plaintiffs have not ide