The main legal point established in the judgment is that the J&K Migrant Immovable Act, 1997, specifically Section 8, can bar a civil suit and lead to its dismissal under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.

JUDGMENT :

VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the Order dated 7th March, 2022, passed by Principal District Judge, Pulwama (for short “Trial Court”) on an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and for setting aside the same.

2. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter.

3. Perusal of file reveals that a civil suit has been filed by appellant before the Trial Court, claiming therein that in the year 1997-98, he purchased the land situate at Village Lalpora, Tral, Pulwama, from its owners/defendants and paid them the full and final sale consideration amount. According to plaintiff, he continued to be in possession of land in question. It is stated by appellant/plaintiff that a sale deed was executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 4. He sought following reliefs:

(i) By a decree declaration the sale deed dated 03.02.2012 registered by the Sub Registrar Tral on 05.03.2012, as also the power of attorney allegedly executed by the defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 4 on 01.04.2010, registered by Sub-Registrar, 2nd Addl. Munsiff, Jammu, on 16.04.2010 may kindly be declared as null and void viz-a-viz the rights of the plaintiff in respect of lands measuring 05 kanals 8.1/2 marlas and 136 Sq. ft. under Survey Nos. 2326/767 (1 kanal 11 marlas), 2324/768 (3 kanals 2.1/2 marlas), 1823/671/769 (11½ m), 1826/761/769 min (3.1/2 m) situate in village Lalpora Tral.

(ii) Further the defendant no. 1 may kindly be commanded to perform the obligation created under an agreement to sell executed by her along with other co-sharers namely Jankinath Bhat, Dwarkanath Bhat, Vedlal Bhat, Shadilal on 27.06.1998 in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the suit properties.

(iii) By a further decree of permanent injunction the defendants may kindly be restrained from causing any interference into the peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the plaintiff and or evicting the plaintiff from the suit properties any illegal methods.

4. Written statement was filed by defendants, raising therein the preliminary objections qua maintainability of the suit, including that necessary parties have not been made party to the suit, and the court lacks jurisdiction in view of provisions of J&K Migrant Immovable (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997 (for short ‘Act of 1997’) and that suit property was in the custody of defendant no. 7 right from the date of enforcement of the Act of 1997 and that defendants 2 and 3 purchased the suit land through a duly executed sale deed by defendant no. 1 in their favour after obtaining the required permission from the government.

5. The Trial Court, in view of pleadings of the parties, in terms of order dated 23rd September 2017, framed following issues:

(1) Whether defendant no. 1 along with other co-sharers, namely, Jankinath, Veilal and Shailal executed an agreement to sell dated 27.06.1998 in favour of plaintiff with respect to the suit property?

(2) Whether the agreement to sell dated 17.06.1998 is binding on the defendant no. 1 with respect to her share in the suit property?

(3) Whether sale deed dated 03.12.2012 registered by Sub-Registrar, Tral, on 05.03.2012 and power of attorney dated 01.04.2010 registered by Sub-Registrar, 2nd Additional Munsiff, Jammu, on 16.04.2020 executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 4 are liable to be declared null and void and inoperative upon the right of the plaintiff?

(4) Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of specific performance of contract as prayed for?

(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for?

(6) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

(7) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is hit by provision of Jammu and Kashmir Migrant Immovable (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997, and civil Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate upon th