Safiya Malik

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar has set aside an order passed by the appellate court directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the suit property. In the judgment delivered on July 11, 2025, the High Court held that the trial court had properly exercised its jurisdiction in refusing interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs, and the appellate court had acted beyond its jurisdiction by interfering with the well-reasoned order. The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to correct the error committed by the appellate court.

The dispute originated from a civil suit for declaration and injunction filed by the plaintiffs before the trial court, seeking a declaration of ownership and possession over land measuring 02 kanals and 08 marlas under Survey No.878 situated at Village Nowgam. The plaintiffs claimed that the suit property had devolved upon them after a partition in 1970 among the co-sharers of the ancestral estate.

Also Read: Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Under Article 142 | Quashes 498A IPC Case And Directs IPS Officer-Wife And Her Parents To Apologize Publicly For False Allegations And Social Media Defamation

According to the plaintiffs, the joint property of the predecessors-in-interest—Rehman Bhat and Ramzan Bhat—was partitioned between Salam Bhat, Qadir Bhat, and Mst. Khati around 1970. Upon partition, the land in question allegedly fell to the share of Abdul Salam Bhat, whose legal heirs are the present plaintiffs. The plaintiffs asserted that they had been cultivating and possessing the land since 1970.

In response to the suit, the petitioners/defendants filed a written statement contesting the plaintiffs' claims. They argued that the suit land was under the continuous possession of Mst. Khati, the ancestor of the contesting defendants, as evidenced by entries in the revenue record. The defendants submitted copies of Khasra Girdawari from 2022 and Jamabandi Chaharsala showing that Mst. Khati was reflected as owner in possession of the land.

The plaintiffs filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking temporary injunction against the defendants to restrain them from interfering with their alleged possession over the suit property. The trial court, after hearing both parties and analysing the material on record, dismissed the application by order dated 02.02.2023. The trial court concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to produce any material or revenue extracts to support their claim of possession, and that the entries in the revenue record prima facie favoured the defendants.

Aggrieved by the dismissal of the interim injunction, the plaintiffs filed an appeal before the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Srinagar. The appellate court, by order dated 12.06.2024, allowed the appeal and directed both parties to maintain status quo regarding the suit land. The appellate court held that, since the plaintiffs had filed sworn affidavits and the matter required adjudication on ownership and possession, interim relief should be granted to preserve the subject matter of the litigation.

Challenging the appellate order, the petitioners filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court. They argued that the appellate court had committed a jurisdictional error and failed to appreciate the presumption of correctness attached to revenue entries under Section 31 of the Land Revenue Act. It was further contended that the appellate court overlooked the trial court's reasoned findings and acted in disregard of settled legal principles governing interim relief.

The High Court, after examining the case record and hearing the counsel for both parties, recorded several observations underpinning its decision to set aside the appellate order.

"One thing that plaintiffs have admitted is that the partition of the joint estate took place in the year 1970. However, they have not placed on record even a single document in the shape of any revenue extract to support their contention that the suit land had fallen to their share and that the same has been and is in their possession."

The Court noted that the plaintiffs' claim was solely supported by their own affidavits without any corroborative revenue documents.

"On the other hand, the contesting defendants have placed on record of the trial court a copy of Khasra Girdawari issued in the year 2022, according to which the suit land measuring 02 kanals and 08 marlas is under the personal cultivation of Mst. Khati, the predecessor in interest of the contesting defendants and her name is also reflected in the ownership column in the revenue record."

The High Court stated the statutory presumption in favour of revenue records under Section 31 of the Land Revenue Act:

"There is a presumption of correctness attached to the entries made in the revenue records in terms of section 31 of the Land Revenue Act. This presumption, of course, is rebuttable in nature."

Further, the Court noted: "Merely swearing an affidavit that they are owners in possession does not dislodge the presumption attached to the entries in Khasra Girdawari."

Consequently, the Court held: "The very first ingredient of establishing a prima facie case for succeeding in an application for grant of interim injunction has not been made out by the plaintiffs in the present case."

The Court found no need to delve into the remaining ingredients of balance of convenience and irreparable loss: "In view of this, there is no need to deliberate upon the other two ingredients i.e. balance of convenience and irreparable loss in case of grant or refusal of interim injunction in the present case."

The High Court endorsed the trial court’s findings: "The learned trial court has properly analysed the pleadings and the documents on record, whereafter it has come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to establish a prima facie case in their favour."

The Court was critical of the appellate court’s reasoning: "The learned appellate court, it seems, in its anxiety to protect the subject matter of the lis, directed maintenance of status quo on spot without realising that the plaintiffs had failed to establish a prima facie case in their favour."

It concluded that the appellate court had exceeded its authority: "In the present case, the learned appellate court while passing the impugned order, has acted beyond its jurisdiction and has committed a grave error which has resulted in miscarriage of justice."

Also Read: Custody And Illness Prevented Appearance | J&K HC Condones Delay And Restores Cheque Bounce Complaints | Dismissal For Non-Prosecution Set Aside As Legally Unjustified

The High Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution and issued the following directives: "Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned appellate court is set aside."

The Court ordered communication of the judgment to the lower courts: "Copies of this order be sent to both the courts below for information."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. M. A. Makhdoomi, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. N. A. Beigh, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Mohammad Murshid, Advocate

Case Title: Mohammad Shafi Bhat & Ors. vs. Ghulam Nabi Bhat & Ors.

Case Number: CM(M) No.284/2024

Bench: Justice Sanjay Dhar