IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
SANJEEV KUMAR, J.
Mohammad Alam Hakak (Ganjoo) - Appellant
Versus
Mst. Shameema & Others - Respondents
FAO No. 16 of 2023
Decided On : 01-05-2024
Interim Relief - Land Dispute - [Order dated 25.07.2023, Court of learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Srinagar, in file No.60/Misc tilted 'Mst. Shameema & Anr. vs. Mst. Noreen & Ors.'] - [Order referred to Act Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908] - The court discussed the dispute over land ownership and possession, the demarcation exercise, and the interim order granting relief to the plaintiffs while protecting the interests of the defendant No.3. The court emphasized the discretion of civil courts in passing interim injunctions and the need to maintain equilibrium between the parties in a suit.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the defendants, claiming ownership of land purchased through sale deeds. The defendant No.3 disputed the claim, leading to a demarcation exercise and an interim order by the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to use their land and granted an interim order restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession. The court emphasized the need to maintain equilibrium between the parties and protect the interests of both sides.
Issues: Dispute over land ownership and possession, validity of demarcation report, and the grant of interim relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the discretion of civil courts in passing interim injunctions and the need to maintain equilibrium between the parties in a suit. The demarcation report clarified the position of the plaintiffs' possession, subject to objections from the defendant No.3 and its consideration at the time of final decision by the trial court.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the trial court's order granting interim relief to the plaintiffs and protecting the interests of the defendant No.3.
JUDGMENT :
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the appellant is directed against order dated 25.07.2023 passed by the Court of learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Srinagar [“the trial court”] in file No.60/Misc tilted “Mst. Shameema & Anr. vs. Mst. Noreen & Ors.” whereby the trial court has disposed of the application for grant of ad-interim relief and directed the defendants in the suit not to interfere with the suit property i.e. land measuring 02 kanals 14 marlas comprising of Survey No.219 in Estate Brain. The plaintiffs in the suit have been directed to file an undertaking before the trial court, that in case they ultimately fail to prove their case before the Court, they shall dismantle the construction, if any, raised by them during the pendency of the suit at their own cost and handover the vacant possession to the defendant No.3 if he succeeds in establishing his case. The plaintiffs have also been directed not to create any third party interest in the suit.
2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the respondents 1 and 2, who shall be hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiffs" for convenience, filed a suit for declaration and injunction against Mst. Nasreena and five others. The appellant herein was arrayed as party/defendant No.3 in the suit and shall hereinafter be referred to as such. In the suit, the plaintiffs have pleaded that they are owners in possession of the subject land which they have purchased by virtue of three different sale deeds executed by the vendors in their favour on 13th of May, 2010 with respect to land measuring 01 kanal under Khewat No.34, Khata No.199, dated 4th July, 2012 for land measuring 04 kanals under Khasra No.219-min Khewat No.34 and dated 13th May, 2010 for land measuring 01 kanal and 10 marlas falling under Survey No.219, Khewat No.34 Khata No.199 situated at Mouza Brane Batgo Tehsil and District Srinagar. It is alleged that the defendant No.3-appellant herein has been making attempts to encroach upon the subject land claiming it to be the part of the land purchased by him by virtue of a sale deed executed in the year 2005 with respect of land measuring 01 kanal and 10 marlas.
3. In the backdrop of aforesaid grievance projected by the plaintiffs in their suit, following reliefs have been claimed in the suit :
(ii) A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 3 from causing any interference into the peaceful user of the property by the plaintiffs or proclaiming any right over the same. The defendants 1 and 2 be also restrained from creating any clout over the ownership rights of the plaintiffs vis-a-vis the suit land. The official defendants be also directed by virtue of an appropriate decree to take appropriate measures and action as is required to be taken under law for the purpose of upholding the majesty of law and maintain rule of law and prevent damage being caused to the person of the plaintiffs, their family members and the property owned by them.
4. On being put on notice, the defendant No.3 has entered appearance in the suit and filed his written statement. While refuting the averments made in the plaint, the defendant No.3 has pleaded that he is owner in possession of land measuring 01 kanal 10 marlas falling under Khewat No.59 Khasra Nos.4153/3817/145, 3813/145, 4161/3819/147, Khewat No.284, Khasra Nos.3816/145, 4169/1
The discretion of civil courts in passing interim injunctions and the need to maintain equilibrium between the parties in a suit.
Appellate Court may permit additional evidence to be produced whether oral or documentary, if conditions mentioned in Order 41 Rule 27 are satisfied.
The right to property is inviolable and sacred, and no one may be deprived of it without public necessity and just indemnity, as per the Land Revenue Act and the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013.
The main legal point established is the need to satisfy the court with reference to three cardinal principles for the grant of injunctive relief: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irrepar....
Point of Law : Redemption of mortgage property – A party seeking injunction, has to prove his possession over the suit land from the date of accrual of cause of action.
The judiciary's jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to ensuring the authority of subordinate courts, not correcting factual errors.
The judgment establishes the importance of survey documents, notifications, and the correction of misdescriptions in determining possession and entitlement to temporary injunction.
Point of Law : Grant of temporary injunction - Demarcation report - Demarcation report included determination of location of suit premises. A modern method of TSM has been used to demarcate land. Cla....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.