GH AHMED MIR Vs. AHAD NAJJAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the lower appellate court had no jurisdiction to determine the question as to whether the land in dispute was "land  as defined in the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reform Act and that in any event, the court has not decided that question rightly. Even assuming that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to determine this question, and assuming further, that even if he had jurisdiction he has determined this question wrongly, still, his judgment is not vitiated, I say so, because the question whether the land in dispute was "land" as defined in the Agrarian Reforms Act did not arise from the pleadings. Nor even it was otherwise raised in the trial court although the Agrarian Act, came into force during the pendency of the suit in the trial court. As such this question could not be raised first time in appeal before the lower appellate court, and, if I may say so the question was extraneous to the case. Accordingly even if it were assumed, that decision on this extraneous question was either without jurisdiction or erroneous on merits, that would not vitiate the judgment, unless it is otherwise vitiated Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show that it is otherwise vitiated. Accordingly there is no merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed.