MST.ZOONA BEGUM Vs. GHULAM MOHAMMAD SHEIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for impugning order dtd. 12/4/2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge/Munsiff, Sogam, Kupwara (hereinafter for short "the trial court"), whereby the application of respondent No.2 seeking permission to raise construction on a portion of the suit property, has been allowed.

(2.) It appears that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration, injunction and partition along with the relief of separate possession against the respondents/defendants in respect of land measuring 47 kanals and 01 marla comprised in various khasra numbers situated at Estate Surigam Lolab, before the learned trial court. In the plaint, the petitioner/plaintiff has alleged that the parties to the suit are the legal heirs of estate holder Ahmad Sheikh and after his death long time back, the parties have become joint owners in respect of the suit property. According to the petitioner/plaintiff, the suit property is unpartitioned and she being the rightful share holder of the suit property is entitled in law to claim her right to separate possession to the extent of her share in the suit property. It has been pleaded that the plaintiff had continuously insisted upon partition of the suit property but she came to know that the defendants in connivance with the revenue agencies have got mutations recorded in a fraudulent manner without the knowledge of the petitioner/plaintiff and that the said mutations stand challenged by her before the competent authority/forum.

(3.) Respondents No.1 to 3/defendants contested the suit by filing their written statement, in which they admitted that the parties to the suit are descendants of late Shri Ahmad Sheikh. According to the respondents/defendants, the suit property has already been partitioned amongst the parties decades back and that the parties are enjoying the usufructs of their respective shares. It has also been pleaded by the respondent/defendants that the plaintiff in lieu of her share has received cash from them at the time of partition.