FARID AHMAD Vs. LIAQAT ALI
LAWS(J&K)-1999-5-31
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on May 19,1999

FARID AHMAD Appellant
VERSUS
LIAQAT ALI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS Civil Second Appeal being not maintainable, has been treated as a petition of revision. The facts of the case in brief are these. Land measuring 9 kanals 18 marlas comprising khasra No. 197 situated in village Chakka Tehsil Bhaderwah is recorded in the ownership and possession of the respondents, who are brothers. Out of this, 18 marlas have been transferred by respondent, Anyatullah in favour of the petitioner vide lease deed executed on 25 -05 -1995 and registered by the Sub -Registrar, Bhaderwah on 27 -05 -1995.
(2.) THE plaintiff, Liaqat Ali respondent herein, filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the appellant from interfering in the possession of the land on the basis of this lease deed, which according to him, is valid.
(3.) HE also applied for ad -interim injunction, restraining the appellant from interfering in with his possession on the basis of the lease deed. This application under order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected by the learned trial court on 15 -12 -1997 by observing as under: - The cumulative effect of what has been said and done above is that on the face of a registered instrument of lease which the non -applicant No. 1 has executed it cannot be said that the petitioner has the prima facie existence of a right in his favour or has any equities in his favour. No loss will be caused to the petitioner in case the temporary injunction as prayed for is not granted to him nor will he be subjected to any inconvenience, while as, all inconvenience will be caused to the no -applicant No. 1 in case he is divested of his right to enjoy the subject matter of lease in confirmity to the terms and conditions of the deed of lease executed in his favour by virtue of a registered instrument except of course that the term of the lease has to be put at Twenty one years only.  This order was set -aside by the appellate court and substituted by an order of status -quo with a direction to the trial court to decide the question of possession before deciding an application under order 39, Rule -1 of Civil Procedure Code. The appellant challenges the order on the ground that the order of status -quo without determining actual possession will create more problems than solving any.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.