GH MOHD MATOO Vs. GH RASOOL SOFI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil First Appeal has been filed by one Gh. Mohd. Matoo S/o Gh. Quadir Matoo R/o Qamarwari, Srinagar against the ex parte judgment and decree passed by Ld Additional District Judge, Srinagar on 23-7-1999 in a case titled Gh. Mohd. Matoo v. Gh. Rasool Sofi and others COS 29/N of 1984 by means of which the Court has dismissed the suit of the appellant-plaintiff Gh. Mohd. Matoo.

(2.) The dispute between the parties is on a piece of land measuring 5 Kanals and 6 marlas of land situated under survey No. 438 Khewat No. 9 at Gulab Bagh, Zakura Tehsil Ganderbal. Appellant-plaintiffs case before the trial Court was that he and respondent defendant No. 1 namely Gh. Rasool Sofi S/o Mohd. Akber Sofi R/o Mir Behari purchased a piece of land measuring 10 kanal and 12 marlas, in equal shares, under the above mentioned survey No. situated at Gulab bagh Zakura Tehsil. Ganderbal. The land was in the shape of orchard and the same was purchased by them from Gani Wani, Gh. Rasool Bhat and Salam Malik by means of a sale deed executed on 2nd May, 1974 and registered on 20-12-1974 by Sub Registrar Ganderbal, Kashmir. After the purchase of land the same was mutated in their names by means of mutation Order No. 101 and thus the land came in their possession. It was further pleaded that the appellant and respondent No. 1 partitioned the said land privately each having possession of his respective share of 5 Kanals and 6 marlas and that they enjoyed its fruits. The share of the appellant according to him fell on the Eastern side.

(3.) It was further alleged by the appellant that respondents 2 to 5 have without any right and in collusion with respondent No. 1 taken possession of the land forcibly. According to him respondents 2 to 5 base their claim on an agreement to sell allegedly executed by the appellant and respondent No. 1 on 19-10-1977 and registered on 27- 10-1977 in favour of respondents 2 to 4 through respondent No. 5. It is further stated that at the time the alleged agreement to sell is shown to be executed, there was complete prohibition on alienation of land and the agreement was entered into to over come the bar imposed by the Provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act.