The court upheld the trial court's injunction order, affirming the plaintiff's exclusive ownership of the pathway and rejecting the defendants' claims of easementary rights due to lack of evidence.

ORDER :

SANJAY DHAR, J.

1) Caveat stands discharged.

2) Through the medium of present miscellaneous appeal the appellants/defendants have challenged order dated 25.09.2024 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Pulwama, whereby in a suit filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff against the appellants and respondent Nos.2 to 7, application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC has been allowed and the appellants have been restrained from causing any sort of interference with respect to the suit land falling under survey No.6508 situated at village Lethpora, Tehsil Pampora, District Pulwama particularly with the pathway measuring 14x788 feet existing on spot.

3) It appears that respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed a suit for mandatory injunction commanding the defendants, including the appellants herein, not to interfere or damage the suit property, more particularly the proprietary road exclusively owned by the plaintiff trust as well as the gate installed at the entrance of suit property. A decree of injunction prohibiting the defendants from interfering or encroaching upon the suit property has also been sought in the said suit.

4) According to the plaintiff/respondent No.1, it has acquired a parcel of land measuring 2 ‰ acres situated in village Lethpora Tehsil Pampore District Pulwama bearing Khasra No.6508, which is duly mutated in revenue records in its favour. It has been further pleaded that the plaintiff trust has also acquired the approach road measuring 14 feet x 788 feet, exclusively for access to the educational institution, which is being run by it. It has been submitted that majority of the students enrolled in the B.Ed training programme are non-local, predominantly female students from various regions of India and because of current security situation their safety is of paramount concern to the trust. It has been pleaded that local inhabitants have been trespassing on the college road, consistently obstructing and damaging it, thereby causing significant inconvenience to students, staff and visiting parents of the students. According to the plaintiff, Divisional Commissioner Kashmir and other higher authorities were approached for persistent trespass and unwarranted interference on the road leading to the College, but no action was taken by them. That the College Management resolved to erect a gate at the main entry of the road as a security measure and despite these efforts some individuals persist in attempting to vandalize the gate and misuse the institution’s private property for illicit purposes. It has been contended that the defendants are adamant to dispossess the plaintiff trust from the suit property which has compelled the plaintiff to file the suit.

5) The defendants, including the appellants and private respondents 2 to 7, filed their written statements. In their written statement the appellants pleaded that the land which is in occupation of the plaintiff is actually part of a big chunk of land measuring about 150 kanals which is custodian land. It has been contended that plaintiff trust has encroached upon this land and managed some revenue entries in its favour. It has been further submitted that the pathway upon which the plaintiff is claiming its exclusive rights has been existing since decades and said pathway is sole source of ingress and egress to the residences of appellants/defendants. It has been submitted that the claim of the plaintiff over the said pathway is belied from the fact that as per the sale deed it has purchased only 35 marlas of the land, whereas the suit pathway measures more than 40 marlas. It has been further submitted that subject matter of the sale deed is not the pathway but the same is comprised in a different survey number and even if there is any sale deed, the same is nullity in the eyes of law. It has been further pleaded that under the garb of security, the plaintiff is trying to deprive the appellants/defendants from using of the common pathway, which they have been using