MUSHTAQ AHMAD RAFIQUEE Vs. GH. MOHD. DAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil 2nd Appeals 14 of 2003 and 15 of 2003 arise from identical judgments and have been admitted for hearing on identical question of law, that reads as under: Whether suit was barred by provisions of Section 139 of Land Revenue Act, 1996 Svt. (1939-AD) ?

(2.) The background facts may be summarized in the first instance.

(3.) The Respondents 9.7.2003 filed two civil suits in the Court of Ld. Sub Judge Budgam registered as 46-A/Numbri and 46-B/Numbri. The averments made in the suits were identical. In suit No. 46-A/Numbri the Respondents claimed to be owners in possession of a plot of land measuring 8 kanal and 12 marlas comprising of survey No. 145/1 min khewat No. 233 min situated at estate Rawalpora Tehsil Budgam ('Suit land' for short). The Respondents averred that Shri Gh. Mohammad Najar S/o Razak Najar R/o Bhagwanpora, Rawalpora (proforma Respondents) on 30.6.1989 pursuant to a conspiracy hatched with Tehsildar Settlement Chadoora got an area measuring 4 kanal 12 marlas out of aforesaid plot entered in the revenue record in his favour and that on appeal the order of Tehsildar settlement was set aside by Assistant Commissioner Budgam vide order dated 30.10.1989. The Respondents, it is averred, as such continued to remain in possession 6f the said plot of land. The Respondents pleaded that the proforma Respondent in connivance with the Appellant to dispossess the Respondents from the suit land with a criminal intention, executed a sale deed on 12.9.1989 registered on 11.12.1989 in respect of an area measuring two kanals out of the suit land in favour of the Appellant. It was pleaded that as the proforma Respondent was not owner in possession of the suit land or any part thereof including the part that form subject matter of the sale deed in question, the sale deed deserved to be declared null and void.