HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(2562/2026)

In CM(M) 147/2026 CM(2563/2026)

Reserved on: 5^th May, 2026. Pronounced on: 6^th May,2026 Uploaded on: 7^th May,2026 Whether operative part or full judgment has been pronounced: Full Farooq Ahmad Mir (70 years) …Petitioner(s)

S/o Late Rahim Mir R/o Lalpora, District Kupwara.

Through: Mr. S M. Saleem, Advocate.

Vs.

1. Habib Ul-llah Bhat. ...Respondent(s)

2. Noor-u-Allh Bhat S/o Saif-ul-llah Bhat R/o: TehsIl Lalpora, Lolab District: Kupwara

3. Mushtaq Ahmad Mir S/o: Rahim Mir R/o: Lalpora Lolab, District Kupwara.

Through: CORAM:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, Judge.

JUDGMENT

01. The petitioner, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeks setting aside of order dated 28.02.2026 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Kupwara, whereby the appellate Court has dismissed the miscellaneous appeal preferred by the petitioner and upheld the order dated 30.05.2024 passed by the learned Munsiff, Sogam, granting interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents, which is also impugned in the instant petition.

02. The factual matrix of the case is that the respondents herein had instituted a suit for permanent injunction before the learned Trial Court, asserting possession over the suit property, comprising land, building, and an access pathway. Along with the suit, an application for interim relief was filed, which came to be allowed initially by way of an ex-parte order dated 28.12.2023 and subsequently confirmed vide order dated 30.05.2024 after hearing both sides.

03. The petitioner herein/defendants, being aggrieved of the said order, preferred miscellaneous appeal before the learned Principal District Judge, Kupwara. The appellate Court, after appreciating the record and considering the rival submissions, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Learned Munsif Sogam dated 30.05.2024, primarily on the ground that the plaintiffs had succeeded in establishing a prima facie case of possession and that the balance of convenience lay in maintaining status quo.

04. Heard and considered.

05. The principal contention raised by the petitioner before this Court is that both the Courts below have erred in placing reliance upon an unregistered and unstamped agreement to sell, which, according to the petitioner, does not confer any right, title, or interest in immovable property and is inadmissible in evidence. It is further contended that the property in question is joint and undivided, and therefore incapable of lawful alienation.

06. This Court is not inclined to accept the aforesaid contention for more than one reason, as although an agreement to sell does not confer title, it may nonetheless be relied upon for collateral purposes, including for determining the nature of possession. It is well settled that at the stage of consideration of an application for temporary injunction, the Court is not required to conclusively determine title. The enquiry is limited to the existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and likelihood of irreparable injury.

07. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Zenit Mataplast (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, reported as(2009) 10 SCC 388 has held as under:

“Interim order is passed on the basis of prima facie findings, which are tentative. Such order is passed as a temporary arrangement to preserve the status quo till the matter is decided finally, to ensure that the matter does not become either infructuous or a fait accompli before the final hearing. The object of the interlocutory injunction is to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his right for which he could not be adequately compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial.”

08. A plain reading of judgment supra makes it clear that it is evident that an interlocutory injunction rests on prima facie and tentative findings and is intended only as a