SANSAR CHAND Vs. SOM DUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is one filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir as also one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 104 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir for quashing the judgment and order dated 11th of May, 2013 passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Jammu in appeal whereby the judgment and order dated 31-12-2010 passed by the learned Munsiff, Akhnoor in a suit for declaration-cum-permanent Prohibitory Injunction, ordering maintenance of status quo, has been set aside. In order to appreciate the controversy in its correct perspective, it is necessary to give a few facts in brief:

(2.) Land measuring 2 kanals underlying khasra No. 631/609 was a subject matter of an agreement to sell dated 18-12-1993 between the owner, Puran Chand on the one hand and petitioner and respondent No. 1 in equal shares. A consideration amount of Rs. 5,000/-, was allegedly paid equally to the extent of Rs. 2500/- each by petitioner and respondent No. 1 to the owner Puran Chand. It is stated that possession of. the aforesaid land was given to the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and they came to occupy and possess one kanal each of the said two kanals. It is further stated that whereas, petitioner was put in possession of one kanal on the eastern side of the plot, the respondent came to occupy one kanal of land towards the western side. The petitioner herein alleged that he constructed a plinth over one kanal of land in his possession.

(3.) A suit came to be filed by the petitioner herein in the court of learned Munsiff, Akhnoor for declaration-cum-permanent prohibitory injunction against respondent No. 1 when he alleged interference with the possession of the petitioner over the land . It was then that the petitioner is stated to have acquired the knowledge that the respondent No. 1 had got executed a sale deed in his favour in the year 1994 in respect of the entire two kanals of land regarding which the petitioner had no knowledge. A mutation bearing No. 856 dated 28-11-2001 is also stated to have been attested in favour of respondent No. 1 in regard to two kanals of land regarding which the petitioner is stated to have no knowledge. It was in these circumstances that the petitioner states that the suit was filed by him to protect his possession over one kanal of land on the eastern side.