ZOONA Vs. BASHIR AHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners/plaintiffs instituted a Civil Original Suit against the respondents/defendants. The suit was for grant of decree of declaration, partition and perpetual injunction. The petitioners, in the suit, have averred that the land measuring 5 Kanals and 2 = Marlas covered under Survey No. 717, 716, 722 and 2838/713 situated at Kupwara is their joint property, same having been left behind by their mother, who was owner of the property and after her death devolved upon the parties of the suit. It is further claim of the petitioners in the suit that the parties raised construction of Shopping Complex consisting of 105 shops on the said piece of land and the rent they receive from the tenants of shops is their source of sustenance. The respondents/defendants 1 & 2 filed written statement before the learned Trial Court and prayed for rejection of the suit under Order 7, Rule 11. It is further pleaded by the respondents 1 & 2 in the written statement that the suit property exclusively belongs to them and order on mutation was passed in respect of the property in their favour. It is also pleaded that the respondents/defendants decided to construct shopping Complex on the suit land and in this behalf they obtained term loan of 34.00 lacs from the Jammu and Kashmir Bank. The permission has also been granted by the concerned Statutory Authority for raising construction of shops in favour of the respondents/defendants.

(2.) The petitioners/plaintiffs, alongside the suit, filed application for appointment of receiver as also for grant of injunction. The learned Trial Court restrained the respondents/defendants from alienating or transferring the suit property and also ordered for appointment of receiver. The defendant no. 3, father of plaintiffs and defendants 1 & 2 was appointed as receiver. The respondents/defendants 1 & 2 being aggrieved of the said order challenged the same in a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before the Court of Principal District Judge, Kupwara. The learned Appellate Court, vide its Order dated 16th February, 2013 set-aside the order of appointment of receiver passed by the Trial Court.

(3.) The petitioners being aggrieved of the order of learned Appellate Court have challenged the same in this writ petition.