S. No. 89 Regular Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR RFA No. 07/2025 Vaishali Chopra and Anr. …Appellant/Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. S.M. Ayoub, Advocate Vs.

Ashok Kumar Langoo and Ors. ...Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. Zubair Ahmad, Advocate for R-1to 7 Mr. Bikramdeep Singh, Dy. AG for R-8&9 CORAM:

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE

O R D E R

03.11.2025

1. The appellants challenge the Judgment/Order dated 20.12.2024, passed by the Additional District Judge, Srinagar (Trial Court) whereby the plaint has been rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The impugned order is challenged on the following grounds:

I. The Court below has wrongly rejected the plaint of the (Plaintiff) Appellants, the impugned judgment/order dated 20.12.2024 has taken away the accrued legal right of the Appellants. The view taken by the Trial Court is completely against the Jammu and Kashmir Migrants Immovable Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act 1997. The Suit is filled by sister against so called brother both are migrants, on sale of property in fraudulent manner, respondent projecting himself the sole legal heir of Late R.N Langoo excluding the real legal heir of Late R.N. Langoo. The pure question is of inheritance based on title and possession of the property an issue involved in the suit. The Trial Court has fallen into grave error of law by rejecting the plaint vide Order dated 20.12.2024.

II. That the trial court has committed grave error of law not considering the Order/Judgment of Hon’ble Court dated

12.07.2023 In OWP No. 2481 of 2019 as such the impugned order is bad in law is liable to set aside under the appropriate orders of this Hon’ble Court.

III. That the suit of the plaintiffs/Appellants is based on titled and being the respondent No.1 has executed a power of attorney on the same basis claiming himself the sole legal heir, on the date of executing power of attorney the title of the property was in the name of Late R.N. Langoo, the grandfather of the appellants, the issue is purely within the domain of civil court as has been held by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 12.07.2023 in OWP No. 2481 of 2019 and replicated by the ld trial court in para 21 of the impugned judgment and applied in contrary, as such the impugned order is bad in law is liable to set aside under the appropriate orders of this Hon’ble Court.

IV. That the judgment/order dated 20.12.2024 involves the pure question of fact which has not been objected at all by the Respondent No. 1, the ld. District Judge has presumed the limitation of its own without any substantial proof. The issue is as to whether the court of law can pass any order/judgment which takes away the vested legal right of plaintiff/appellants against the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Court. The Order impugned is unsustainable and on wrong assumption.

V. The issue decided that no suit can be filed against migrant in the subject matter has not been objected or disputed by the respondent No. 1 who has usurped entire property of the plaintiffs, the other respondents 4 to 7 became owners by a sale deed on fraudulent power of attorney, therefore the suit of the plaintiffs is not covered by Section 8 of Jammu and Kashmir Migrant Act. This legal aspect of the matter has been ignored by the Court below and has decided the suit of the plaintiffs against the law and facts, the impugned judgment and decree has resulted into grave manifest error of law, as such the others impugned are liable to be quashed and set-aside.

VI. The Appellants stated in the plaint that the cause of action accrued to the plaintiff on 17^th May 2019. When the plaintiff received the notice of CPM No. 03 of 2019 and OWP of 212 of 2019 along with writ petition, while going through the averments of writ petition plaintiff got the knowledge of sale deed and possession of the defendants. As per the averments and the material in the