1. Petitioner: unregistered agreement inadmissible; property joint and undivided. Respondent: agreement shows possession; balance of convenience supports injunction. (Para 05 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 671
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Wasim Sadiq Nargal, J
FAROOQ AHMAD MIR – Appellant
Versus
HABIB UL LLAH BHAT AND OTHERS – Respondent
CM(M) 147 / 2026
Important Points
An unregistered agreement to sell is admissible as evidence for collateral purposes, such as establishing prima facie possession for an interim injunction. Under Article 227, High Courts will not substitute their discretion for that of lower courts unless the decision is perverse or illegal.
Subject
Civil Law - Injunctions and Property Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Registration Act, 1908 - Section 49 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Interim Injunction - Scope of supervisory jurisdiction. The power under Article 227 is extraordinary and discretionary, intended to be used sparingly to keep subordinate courts within their bounds and not for correcting mere errors. A High Court exercising this jurisdiction will not re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own view for that of the court below unless the discretion exercised is patent own arbitrariness, perversity, or disregard of settled principles (Paras 10, 11, 18, 19, 20).
(B) Interim Injunction - Prima facie case - Balance of convenience - Irreparable injury - Interlocutory injunctions are passed on tentative findings to preserve status quo and ensure proceedings do not become infructuous. The court is not required to conclusively determine title at this stage; the enquiry is limited to the existence of a prima facie case and the likelihood of irreparable injury (Paras 6, 7, 8).
(C) Evidence - Unregistered Agreement to Sell - Collateral purpose - An unregistered document affecting immovable property, though required to be registered under the Registration Act, 1908 or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, may be admitted in evidence for collateral transactions not requiring registration, such as establishing the nature and character of possession in a suit for injunction (Paras 13, 14, 15).
(D) Property Law - Joint and undivided property - Disputed questions of fact. A plea that a property is joint and undivided raises questions of fact that must be adjudicated during trial upon appreciation of evidence and cannot be decided at the interlocutory stage (Para 17).
Facts of the case:
Respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction asserting possession over suit property comprising land, building, and an access pathway. An interim injunction was granted by the Trial Court and subsequently upheld by the appellate court. The petitioner challenged these orders, contending that the Courts relied on an unregistered and unstamped agreement to sell which is inadmissible to prove title and that the property is joint and undivided.
Findings of Court:
Both Courts below correctly relied on the unregistered agreement for the collateral purpose of determining prima facie possession. In a suit for simpliciter injunction, settled possession is paramount. The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court does not allow for the re-assessment of material if the lower court's view is reasonably possible based on the record.
Issues: Whether an unregistered agreement to sell can be used to establish prima facie possession for granting an interim injunction and whether the High Court under Article 227 should interfere with the discretionary orders of lower courts when a reasonably possible view was taken.
Ratio Decidendi: Unregistered documents are admissible for collateral purposes, including assessing the nature of possession. In the context of an interim injunction, the court's focus is on prima facie possession rather than conclusive title. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting patent illegality or perversity and does not extend to substituting a different possible view.
Result: Petition dismissed; orders of the lower courts are upheld.
(B) Interim Injunction - Prima facie case - Balance of convenience - Irreparable injury - Interlocutory injunctions are passed on tentative findings to preserve status quo and ensure proceedings do not become infructuous. The court is not required to conclusively determine title at this stage; the enquiry is limited to the existence of a prima facie case and the likelihood of irreparable injury (Paras 6, 7, 8).
(C) Evidence - Unregistered Agreement to Sell - Collateral purpose - An unregistered document affecting immovable property, though required to be registered under the Registration Act, 1908 or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, may be admitted in evidence for collateral transactions not requiring registration, such as establishing the nature and character of possession in a suit for injunction (Paras 13, 14, 15).
(D) Property Law - Joint and undivided property - Disputed questions of fact. A plea that a property is joint and undivided raises questions of fact that must be adjudicated during trial upon appreciation of evidence and cannot be decided at the interlocutory stage (Para 17).
Facts of the case:
Respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction asserting possession over suit property comprising land, building, and an access pathway. An interim injunction was granted by the Trial Court and subsequently upheld by the appellate court. The petitioner challenged these orders, contending that the Courts relied on an unregistered and unstamped agreement to sell which is inadmissible to prove title and that the property is joint and undivided.
Findings of Court:
Both Courts below correctly relied on the unregistered agreement for the collateral purpose of determining prima facie possession. In a suit for simpliciter injunction, settled possession is paramount. The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court does not allow for the re-assessment of material if the lower court's view is reasonably possible based on the record.
Issues: Whether an unregistered agreement to sell can be used to establish prima facie possession for granting an interim injunction and whether the High Court under Article 227 should interfere with the discretionary orders of lower courts when a reasonably possible view was taken.
Ratio Decidendi: Unregistered documents are admissible for collateral purposes, including assessing the nature of possession. In the context of an interim injunction, the court's focus is on prima facie possession rather than conclusive title. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting patent illegality or perversity and does not extend to substituting a different possible view.
Result: Petition dismissed; orders of the lower courts are upheld.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- property law
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S M. Saleem
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S M. Saleem
Table of Contents
2. Courts below properly assessed prima facie possession; unregistered agreement admissible for collateral purpose of showing possession. (Para 06 , 08 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 15 , 16 )
3. Unregistered document may be admitted for collateral purpose, like proving nature and character of possession at interim stage. (Para 14 , 15 )
4. Petition dismissed — orders granting interim injunction upheld. Trial court to decide suit independently on merits. (Para 24 , 25 )
5. Can an unregistered agreement to sell be considered evidence at the interim injunction stage?
Yes, an unregistered agreement to sell can be admitted for the collateral purpose of assessing the nature and character of possession at the prima facie stage. (Para 06 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
6. What is the scope of interference by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution?
Interference is warranted only for patent perversity, gross illegality, or jurisdictional error; the High Court does not reassess evidence or substitute its own view. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
7. What factors are considered when granting a temporary injunction?
The court examines the existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and likelihood of irreparable injury; it does not conclusively determine title. (Para 06 , 07 )
8. Can a person without perfect title maintain a suit for injunction?
Yes, even a person without perfect title, if in settled possession, is entitled to protection against unlawful interference except in accordance with law. (Para 12 )
9. What is the scope of an appellate court's interference with a trial court's discretionary order on injunction?
An appellate court will not interfere unless the discretion was exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or perversely, or settled principles were ignored. (Para 09 , 10 )
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(2562/2026)
In CM(M) 147/2026 CM(2563/2026)
Reserved on: 5th May, 2026. Pronounced on: 6th May,2026 Uploaded on: 7th 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
