The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of detailed pleadings and documents to support the claim of possession, and the limited scope for interference by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

1) The petitioner has challenged order dated 22.02.2023 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Munsiff, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as “the trial court”), whereby in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction filed by him against the respondents, the learned trial court has dismissed the application of the petitioner for grant of temporary injunction. Challenge has also been thrown to order dated 15.09.2023 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as “the appellate court”), whereby appeal filed against the aforesaid order passed by the trial court, has been dismissed.

2) It appears that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from dealing in any manner or interfering in his possession over the land measuring 1 kanal 8 ½ marlas, comprised in khasra No. 427, situated at Barnai Jammu, which according to the plaintiff, is underneath his residential house, kitchen garden and compound. Alongwith the suit, the plaintiff also filed an application for grant of temporary injunction.

3) As per case of the plaintiff, he is owner in possession of land measuring 1 kanal 8 ½ marlas falling under khasra No.427, situated at Barnai Jammu, as the same has devolved upon him from his ancestors. It has been pleaded by the plaintiff that his residential house is situated on the aforesaid land and there is a kitchen garden and compound appurtenant to the said house. There is a road alongside the suit property measuring 136’-9” X 12’-2”, which belongs to the plaintiff but the same has been left for passage to the land of the defendants, who have otherwise no access. It has also been pleaded that the plaintiff is in settled possession of the land in question for the last three decades and the defendants have no right, title or interest in the said land.

4) It has been alleged in the plaint that the defendants are trying to interfere in the plaintiff’s possession over the suit land and Tehsildar Jammu North while acting on an application of the defendants, passed an order on 13.11.2019, whereby Naib Tehsildar, Muthi was directed to demarcate the land. This, according to the plaintiff, has given a handle to the defendants to play mischief on spot. An application was made by the plaintiff to the Tehsildar North, Jammu on 20.08.2020, whereby actual facts were brought to the notice of the said authority and a request was made for recalling of order dated 13.11.2019 but the Tehsildar did not consider the said application of the plaintiff. It has also been pleaded by the plaintiff that the defendants in connivance with the revenue officials are trying to interfere in the suit land.

5) The respondents/defendants contested the suit by filing their written statement. It has been pleaded by the defendants that land comprised in khasra No. 427 min, situated at Barnai Jammu does not belong to the plaintiff. According to the defendants, the land belonging to the plaintiff is comprised in khasra No. 413, situated at Barnai Jammu. It has been further pleaded that the defendants approached Tehsildar North Jammu for delivery of possession of the land measuring 8.5 marlas comprised in khasra No. 427 situated at Barnai, Jammu and the Tehsildar, after holding an inquiry and seeking report from the concerned Patwari, reported that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants was owner of the suit property and after his death, mutation of inheritance bearing No. 1268 Jeem has been attested in favour of the defendants. It is pleaded that the defendants became owner of the land measuring 3 kanals and 2.5 marlas under khasra No. 427, whereas on spot they are in possession of only 2 kanals and 10 marlas of land. Thus, leaving a deficit of 12.5 marlas of land, out of which the defendants are stated to have surrendered 4 marlas of land for use of common pathway, to be utilized by both the parties, whereas rest of the land 8.5 marlas has been encroached