SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir Ladakh High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the maintainability of a civil suit seeking ownership of 4 kanals and 1 marla of land in Billawar on the basis of alleged adverse possession, upholding the trial court’s findings that the property had been adequately identified and the plaintiff had not taken contradictory pleas.
Justice Sanjay Dhar passed the order on October 7 in a civil revision petition filed by Tara Chand and another against Bhagata alias Bhagat Ram.
The dispute concerns land at Village Mooni in Billawar tehsil, falling under Khasra Nos. 360 min, 362 min, 368 min and 370 min. The plaintiff has claimed exclusive ownership and possession of the property, alleging that he has remained in uninterrupted possession since March 12, 1991.
According to the plaint, the defendants’ deceased mother and her co-sharer had handed over 24 kanals and 6 marlas of land, including the disputed portion, to the plaintiff after receiving the agreed consideration of Rs 30,000 under an agreement to sell dated March 12, 1991. A sale deed for 20 kanals and 5 marlas was subsequently executed in his favour on April 12, 2007, while the defendants allegedly did not execute a sale deed for their share in the remaining land.
The defendants had challenged the suit before the trial court, arguing that it was not maintainable because the property had not been properly described and because the plaintiff’s reliance on an agreement to sell was contradictory to his claim of ownership through adverse possession.
The Munsiff, Billawar, rejected both objections through an order dated July 29, 2026, prompting the defendants to approach the High Court.
Examining the challenge, Justice Dhar observed that the burden of establishing that the suit was not maintainable rested on the defendants, who had raised the objection. Although the trial court’s wording while framing the issue was not appropriate, the High Court held that it had correctly placed the burden of proof on the defendants and that no prejudice had been caused to them.
The court also rejected the argument that evidence was required to decide the maintainability issue, holding that the question, in the circumstances of the case, could be determined on the basis of the averments made in the plaint.
On the allegation of contradictory claims, the High Court observed that the plaintiff was not seeking ownership on the strength of the agreement to sell. Instead, he was relying on his alleged long, continuous, uninterrupted and hostile possession of the property. The agreement had been referred to only to explain how he entered into possession, the court noted.
Regarding the identification of the land, the court found that the plaint contained the relevant khasra numbers, measurements, and khewat and khata numbers. It held that the description was sufficient to identify the property and met the requirements of Order VII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Finding no grounds to interfere with the trial court’s order, Justice Dhar dismissed the civil revision petition as without merit.
