Due Process Satisfied Once Injunction Suit Decides Possession Rights, No Separate Eviction Suit Required; J&K High Court
Deekshitha Sharmile
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed a petition challenging the rejection of interim injunction in a dispute over possession of two commercial shops. Observing that due process is satisfied once a competent court adjudicates the parties’ rights, the Court held that where a person in possession sues for an injunction to protect that possession and his claim is dismissed, the opposing party is not required to file a fresh suit for eviction. The case concerned an occupant asserting ownership of the property and the opposing party asserting landlord-tenant relations and arrears of rent; upon finding no prima facie right in favour of the occupant, the Court declined to protect his continued possession.
The petitioner filed a suit before the Sub Judge (Special Mobile Magistrate) Pulwama seeking permanent injunction against the respondents. He claimed to have purchased a piece of land measuring 15/12 feet at Main Market Shadimarg for construction of shops. According to him, he paid Rs.3,92,500/- to one respondent in 2009 against a receipt and later cleared the balance amount of Rs.57,500/-. He asserted that he constructed two shops on the property and was running a bakery business there.
The respondents contested the suit, denying any sale of the property. They claimed ownership of the shopping complex and stated that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant in 2009. They alleged that the petitioner had paid advance rent of Rs.3,92,500/- and agreed to pay monthly rent of Rs.2250/- with periodic enhancement. They further contended that arrears of rent remained unpaid.
The trial court vacated the interim injunction sought by the petitioner. His appeal before the District Judge was dismissed. In challenging these orders, the petitioner relied on the receipt of payment, arguing it evidenced ownership. The Court examined Section 49 of the Registration Act to determine the evidentiary value of the receipt and the nature of possession claimed.
Justice Sanjay Dhar recorded: “The document (receipt of amount), admittedly does not contain any covenant with regard to transaction of sale relating to the suit property. The same is admittedly not a registered document.”
He further stated: “Had it been a case of unregistered agreement to sell, the things may have been different, inasmuch as, the plaintiff by taking aid of proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, could have used the said document as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance, but such is not a case.”
The Court observed: “Neither the plaintiff has filed suit for specific performance nor the document (receipt of money) contains any covenant affecting the suit property. Thus, the receipt of money by defendant No.1 cannot be taken as evidence with regard to agreement to sell the suit property. The contention of the plaintiff in this regard is misconceived.”
On possession, the Court recorded: “Nonetheless it is an admitted case of the parties that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. The question that falls for determination is as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to protect his possession over the suit property against his eviction until the defendants obtain a decree for eviction against him.”
The Court stated: “Once the plaintiff's right to possess the suit property as owner thereof has, prima facie, been found to be untenable, the consequential relief of injunction against his dispossession cannot be granted. The relief of injunction is an equitable relief and a litigant, whose right to such relief has been found to be prima facie, based upon falsehood, cannot be granted such relief.”
It was further observed: “In view of the law discussed hereinbefore, it is clear that requirement of due process of law gets fulfilled once a person in possession brings a suit for injunction against a person who interferes in his possession and his rights are determined in the said suit. It is not necessary for the defendants to bring a fresh suit for eviction against the plaintiff once in a suit for injunction filed by the plaintiffs against defendants the Court determines that the plaintiff does not have a prima facie case in his favour.”
Justice Sanjay Dhar directed: “For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned orders passed by the trial Court and the Appellate Court. The petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Malik Mushtaq, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. M. Amin Khan, Advocate
Case Title: Abdul Khaliq Sofi vs Mohammad Shafi Mir and Another
Case Number: CM(M)512/2025 (CMNos.7685/2025 & 7686/2025 Caveat No.2949/2025)
Bench: Justice Sanjay Dhar
