SRINAGAR: In a significant ruling that reinforces the evidentiary value of revenue records in land disputes, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has set aside a status quo order issued by an appellate court in a civil suit involving land ownership in Village Nowgam. Justice Sanjay Dhar, while pronouncing judgment on July 11 2025 in CM(M) No. 284/2024, held that the appellate court had overstepped its jurisdiction by granting interim relief without a prima facie case established by the plaintiffs.
The case pertains to a civil suit filed by Ghulam Nabi Bhat and others, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief over land measuring 2 kanals and 8 marlas situated at Survey No. 878 in Village Nowgam. The plaintiffs, descendants of Abdul Salam Bhat, claimed the suit land fell to their share following a partition in 1970 among co-heirs. They alleged that the defendants, heirs of Mst. Khati, another co-sharer, were interfering with their peaceful possession of the land.
Alongside the suit, the plaintiffs had filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, requesting a temporary injunction against the defendants. However, the Munsiff (Sub-Registrar), Srinagar, dismissed the application on 2 February 2023. The trial court noted that the plaintiffs had failed to produce any documentary evidence to establish their possession, while the defendants had submitted updated revenue records, including the Khasra Girdawari from 2022 and a Jamabandi Chaharsala, reflecting Mst. Khati’s ownership and cultivation of the disputed land.
Challenging the dismissal, the plaintiffs filed an appeal before the 2nd Additional District Judge, Srinagar, who, on 12 June 2024, overturned the trial court’s decision and directed all parties to maintain status quo regarding the suit land. The appellate court’s decision rested heavily on the plaintiffs’ sworn affidavits asserting ownership and possession.
However, the High Court found fault with this reasoning. “Merely swearing an affidavit that they are owners in possession does not dislodge the presumption attached to the entries in Khasra Girdawari,” the court observed, pointing out that revenue records enjoy a presumption of correctness under Section 31 of the Land Revenue Act. Justice Dhar held that the plaintiffs had not rebutted this presumption with any substantive documentary evidence.
The judgment emphasised that a prima facie case is a necessary precondition for granting interim injunctions. “It is not that in every case where a person files a suit for injunction and claims to be in possession of the suit property without placing on record any document to this effect that an interim injunction directing the parties to maintain status quo is required to be passed,” the court noted.
The High Court also underscored the limitations of appellate jurisdiction in matters where the trial court has exercised discretion judiciously. “The discretion exercised by the learned trial court is neither arbitrary nor perverse. It was not open to the appellate court to interfere with the order,” Justice Dhar ruled.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the revision petition filed by Mohammad Shafi Bhat and others, set aside the impugned order of the appellate court, and reinstated the trial court’s findings.
The ruling serves as a cautionary precedent against granting equitable relief in the absence of corroborating documentation and reiterates the evidentiary strength of revenue records in land title and possession disputes.
