Parties in religious disputes can assert rights based on historical practices and public endowment; possession can confer title through adverse possession.

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.
Some of the witnesses for the plaintiffs have also admitted in their statements that the plaintiffs do not claim this portion of the disputed land. Thus the position is that the plaintiffs' claim is now confined to 19 Kanals and 16 Marlas out of the disputed lands. The plaintiffs further prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the performance of religious ceremonies by the plaintiffs and Sanatani Hindus on the three springs situated on the lands in suit which are known as Mach Bhawan. According to the plaintiffs, the lands in the suit constituted what is known as Mattan shrine which existed from times immemorial and has also been regarded as a sacred Asthan of the Sanatani Hindus. It is further alleged that the Hindus of Kashmir as also from all other parts of India visit this shrine and perform the Shradh of their ancestors on ceremonial occasions like Mal Mas, Vijay Saptami, Solar and Lunar eclipses and Balmas etc.
It is also alleged that some religious ceremonies like Narayan Bali, Dawadeshi and Suraj Bali are peculiar to this shrine. It is also stated by the plaintiffs that the shrine was founded by Kashyap Rishi during very ancient times and is ascribed to Sun God. It was in honour of this deity that King Lalitditya constructed a temple at Martand about a mile away from the premises in dispute and dedicated this temple to Sun God. This temple is now in ruins but Mattan Teerath is Being regarded as a sacred place since times immemorial. According to the plaintiffs, to the south of the springs there is a Dharamsala which consists of two parts divided by a gate. Three rooms in the Dharamsala are in possession of the defendants from the eastern side and the other rooms are in possession of the plaintiffs on the western side which contained Ganesh Murtis. The land in dispute also consists of three springs called Bimal Kund, Kamal and Gauri Kund. The central one which is called the Bimal Kund is the largest of all these springs and will be referred to by me as the central spring. To the north of these springs there is a vacant piece of land towards Pahalgam road, to the north of present Dharamsala towards Pahalgam side there is a two storeyed building which is used as Dharamshala.
There are two bath rooms in the third spring towards Pahalgam road which is called Gauri Kund. To the east of the small spring towards the hill side there are three Hindu temples. This appears to be the topography of the land in dispute as described by the plaintiffs and as proved by the sketch m