LASU SHEIKH Vs. RAMZAN PARRAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVISION petitioners 1 to 3 have filed suit for declaration and injunction to challenge sale deeds executed on 4.4.1970 and 4.8.1970 as devoid of any legal force and to restrain Ramzan Parray defendant to the suit (respondent to the revision petition) to interfere with the possession of the land subject of matter of suit. The property belongs to one Ali Sheikh who died issueless and the plaintiff and proforma defendants (revision petitioners) claim to have succeeded to the entire matrooka estate of said Ali Sheikh legal heirs. The sale deed purportedly executed by said Ali Sheikh in favour of the defendant/respondent as above is prayed to be declared (on pleaded grounds) as null and void, and devoid of any legal force. Respondent/ defendant has contested the suit as well as the revision petition. He claims to be the lawful owner of the property after the two sale deeds were executed by said Ali Sheikh in his favour. He has also pleaded that he is in possession of the subject of the sale and the lis.

(2.) AN application for temporary injunction was moved before the trial court of Munsiff Sumbal Sonawari. The trial court has after hearing parties, on application of legal parameters of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss on coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff has no case for injunction, dismissed the application. Even so, the defendant contesting respondent has been bound by an undertaking that he is not to alienate to suit property during the pendency of the suit. The petitioners challenged the order in Appeal. The Principal District and Sessions Judge Baramulla after hearing the parties on perusal of record on consideration upheld the order of the Munsiff and recorded finding that the conclusion drawn by the Munsiff are supportable on record and, therefore, dismissed the appeal. These orders dated 7.6.2003 and 20.10.2003 are challenged in this petition.

(3.) IN D.L.F Housing and Construction Co.(P) Ltd. v. Sarup Singh and Ors., AIR 1971 SC: 2324, the Supreme Court, while dealing with exercise of revisional jurisdiction by High Court under Section 115 of CPC observed: -