Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
S. Murtaza Fazl Ali, J.
Shamboo Nath v. Sardar Kapoor Singh
Headnote: Read headnote
1. This is a plaintiffs suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the lands in suit bearing plot Nos. 1424/4, 1962/1424/4 and 2304/1143/1. The total area of these lands comes to 29 Kanals and 10 Marlas. This total area of Plot No. 1424/4 is 19 Kanals, 12 Marlas and consists of the Dharamshalla which covers one Kanal and five Marlas, the springs which cover two kanals and the rest of the area is a vacant land towards the Pahalgam road and is recorded as Banjar - i - Qadeem. Similarly plot No. 2304 / 1143/1 consists of vacant land covering four Marias and lands where a number of nouses are situated covering 9 Kanals and 14 Marlas. I might state here that in the course of the arguments the learned counsel for the plaintiffs conceded that the plaintiffs do not press their claim with respect to 9 Kanals and 14 Marias which are recorded as Abadi Deh and which contain houses of the defendants and some of the local Hindus. They confine their claim only to four Marlas in this plot which is a vacant piece of land.
Som
Parties in religious disputes can assert rights based on historical practices and public endowment; possession can confer title through adverse possession.
The distinction between a private and a public endowment is that whereas in the former the beneficiaries are specific individuals, in the latter they are the general public or a class thereof.
The court quashed the complaint and summoning order, ruling that the proceedings were an abuse of process, as established civil court findings negated the allegations made in the criminal complaint.
The court affirmed that 'Guru Granth Sahib' is a juristic person, recognizing its authority to hold property and receive gifts, distinguishing it from idol worship.
The Supreme Court established guidelines for the proper management and regulation of religious properties, emphasizing public interest and accountability of involved parties.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article