HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR …

Pronounced on: 21.11.2025 Mst Khati …….Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr Rizwan ul Zaman, Advocate V/s Abdul Rashid Salroo ……Respondent(s)

Through: Mr Gazanfar Ali, Advocate CORAM:

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE JUDGEMENT

1. This civil second appeal is directed against judgement and decree dated

24^th August 2018, passed by Principal District Judge, Anantnag (1^st Appellate Court) in Civil First Appeal titled as Abdul Rashid Salroo v. Mst. Khati and for setting-aside the same on the grounds made therein.

2. Heard and considered

3. A civil suit titled Mst. Khati v. Abdul Rashid Salroo, was filed by appellant (plaintiff) against respondent (defendant) before the court of Sub Judge, Bijbehara (Trial Court) for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction. The case set up by plaintiff was about interference caused by defendant and restraining him from causing any sort of interference in land measuring 10 Marlas falling under Khasra no.945 min situate at village Jablipora Tehsil Bijbehara, Anantnag (suit land). Defendant in his written statement claimed that he was actually in possession of land measuring 01 Kanal and 10 Marlas failing under Khasra no.945 min situate at Moza Jablipora Tehsil Bijbehara by virtue of a decree passed in his favour and against shareholders of land falling under Khasra no.945 min and that he did not know which land was in possession of plaintiff as she had not specified boundaries of suit land.

Trial Court framed following issues:

(i) Whether plaintiff is owner and in possession of suit land measuring

10 Marlas falling under Survey no.945 min situated at Jablipora Bijbehara? OPP (ii) Whether defendant without any right is interfering in possession of plaintiff in suit land? OPP (iii) Whether defendant is in possession and ownership of land measuring

01 Kanal 10 Marlas under survey no.945 min situated at Jablipora by virtue of a decree? OPP (iv) Whether suit is not maintainable due to suppression of material facts and non-specification of suit land? OPD (v) Whether plaintiff has any cause of action? OPP (vi) Reliefs: To what reliefs parties are entitled? OP Parties

4. Plaintiff adduced three witnesses, besides herself, in support of her case. Defendants produced five witnesses besides himself. Trial Court vide judgement and decree dated 10^th November 2014 allowed plaintiff’s suit, passing a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction along with costs of Rs.10,000/-, restraining defendant from causing any sort of interference personally or through any other person in the ownership and cultivating possession of plaintiff over suit land.

5. Defendant, dissatisfied with Trial Court judgement and decree, directed Civil First Appeal. The 1^st Appellate Court vide impugned judgement and decree allowed defendant’s/respondent’s appeal, setting-aside Trial Court judgement and decree, and dismissing plaintiff’s suit as being meritless. Aggrieved thereof, instant appeal has been filed by plaintiff.

6. This Court vide order dated 27^th April 2022, framed the following substantial question of law for consideration of the case:

“Whether the suit is not maintainable due to the suppression of material facts and non-specification of the suit land?” …OPD

7. However, a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 1^st May

2025, framed following two additional substantial questions of law for determination:

(i) Whether the finding of the 1^st Appellate Court that the respondent/defendant is in possession of the suit land in the absence of any document conferring right of possession upon him with regard to the suit land is sustainable in law?

(ii) In case answer to the aforesaid question is in negative; whether the learned 1^st Appellate Court has fallen in error while interfering with the finding of the fact recorded by the learned Trial Court on the question of possession?

8. Mr. Rizwan, learned counsel for appellant/plaintiff while reiterating all what has been stated in plaint and i