MOHAMMAD ASHRAF SHAH Vs. ZAHOOR AHMAD SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Civil Revision, the petitioners challenge and seek setting aside the order dated 16.08.2021, for short impugned order, passed by the court of learned City Judge (Sub Judge), Srinagar, for short Trial Court, in a suit titled Zahoor Ahmad Shah v. Mohammad Shafi Shah and others, by virtue of which the trial court has granted permission to the respondent/plaintiff to amend the suit despite the fact that the main suit was not maintainable, on the grounds detailed out in the civil revision. The petitioner has further prayed that the suit be dismissed for want of cause of action and other legal grounds which the trial court has failed to appreciate for the last 17 years.

(2.) Briefly put the case of the petitioners is that in the year 1992 the respondent asked for his share of inheritance during the lifetime of his father, which was not legally permissible, however, on humanitarian grounds and due to intervention of family friends the petitioner no. 1, the mother of the petitioner no. 1, the late father of petitioners and the respondent entered into a settlement which was reduced into writing through a Surrender/Renunciation Deed duly registered by the Sub Registrar, Srinagar, in January, 1994. In terms of the said settlement the respondent was paid an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- by the petitioner no. 1/defendant no. 2 in the suit for and on behalf of his father (defendant no. 1 in the suit) from his personal resources.

(3.) The respondent remained contended for almost a decade and thereafter filed a vague, vexatious, ambiguous and a preposterous suit in the year 2004 challenging all the documents like sale deed; rent deed; surrender deed being against the rights of the plaintiff/respondent herein; declare the plaintiff/respondent herein to be entitled to receive his due share out of the whole property in suit in terms of inheritance and succession besides, the respondent also sought a prohibitory injunction against the petitioners herein from causing any interference in the possession and occupation of plaintiff/respondent herein over the orchard mentioned in the suit.