SURESH KUMAR GANDOTRA Vs. POONAM DEVI AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under section 104 of the Constitution of State of Jammu and Kashmir, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of order dated 05.09.2017, by which application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. The petitioner has also assailed the validity of order dated 25.09.2017, by which order dated 05.09.2017 passed by the trial court has been upheld in an appeal.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner has filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondents. In the suit the petitioner has claimed that he has purchased the suit land prior in time and is in possession of the same. Subsequently, the suit land was sold on the basis of sale deed dated 31.12.2009 executed by respondent No. 1 in favour of the respondent No. 4 through her power of attorney holder, respondent No. 2, which was registered on 01.01.2012. The respondent No. 4 claims to be in possession of the suit property on the basis of sale deed executed on 31.12.2009 and registered on 01.01.2012 in respect of land measuring 5 1/2 marlas comprising in Khasra No. 262 min/159, Khata No. 85, which forms the subject matter of the suit. The petitioner has also sought the relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from raising any sort of construction thereby changing the dimension of the land or creating any third party right over the land. Alongside the suit, an application for temporary injunction was also filed by the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 filed reply and contested the suit. In the reply, respondent No. 3 has contended that he has purchased the land for a valuable consideration amount through a sale deed, which was registered in his favour on 01.01.2012, as such he is in possession of the same. It is submitted that on the basis of the aforesaid sale deed executed in favour of the respondent No. 3, mutation has already been attested in the revenue records.

(3.) Vide order dated 05.09.2017, the trial court has inter alia held that the sale deed has been registered before the Court of Sub Registrar, Jammu in favour of respondent No. 3 and the same has also been mutated in favour of respondent No. 3 by virtue of mutation No. 1568/. Accordingly, prayer for temporary injunction was rejected and the said order was upheld by the Lower Appellate Court.