SRINAGAR: A Srinagar court has decreed a permanent injunction restraining a man, his agents and persons acting on his behalf from interfering with the peaceful possession of a 1,224-square-foot plot at Haftchinar, Srinagar, after finding that the plaintiff had established his claim through a registered sale deed, witness testimonies and revenue records.
The court of 1st Additional Munsiff Srinagar, presided over by Judge Zirgham Hamid, passed the decree on October 29 in a suit filed by Mushtaq Ahmad Malik against Surinder Singh. The court also restrained the defendant from dispossessing Malik from the property except in accordance with the law.
“The decision is founded not merely upon the absence of the defendant, but upon the essence of the evidence produced by the plaintiff and the legal principles governing injunction,” the court observed in its judgment.
The suit, instituted on August 2, 2012, concerned a parcel of land falling under Survey No. 642 Min, Khewat No. 248, Mouza Nursing Garh, at Baranpather, Haftchinar, Srinagar. Malik had sought legal protection after alleging that Singh was claiming rights over the land and interfering with his possession without producing documentary evidence to substantiate his claim.
According to the plaint, Malik purchased the property from its recorded owner, Mst Zaina, through a sale deed executed on November 16, 2011, and registered on November 19, 2011, by the Sub-Registrar, Srinagar. He intended to construct a residential house on the land and had approached the competent authorities for building permission, with the relevant agencies issuing no-objection certificates in his favour, the judgment records.
Malik alleged that Singh began interfering with his possession in June and July 2012 and was attempting to occupy the property by using his alleged influence through relatives in the Police Department. He approached the court seeking a permanent injunction to prevent further interference.
The defendant initially appeared in the proceedings but subsequently remained absent for a prolonged period and did not file a written statement contesting the suit. The court initiated ex-parte proceedings against him. Although these proceedings were set aside on December 20, 2022, subject to payment of costs, the defendant did not pay the stipulated amount and consequently remained ex-parte.
Malik thereafter led evidence through affidavits submitted by four witnesses, including himself. Shabir Ahmad Malik, described as the plaintiff’s business partner in the construction business, stated that he had witnessed the sale deed and supported the plaintiff’s claim of ownership and possession. Irshad Ahmad Bakshi also testified that the document had been signed and executed in his presence, while Khalid Ahmad Mir, a neighbour of the plaintiff, corroborated the claim that Malik had remained in possession of the land after purchasing it.
All three witnesses supported the allegation that Singh had subsequently asserted a claim over the property and interfered with Malik’s possession. The plaintiff also appeared as his own witness and reiterated the circumstances of the purchase and the alleged interference.
The court additionally recorded the statement of the concerned Patwari of Nursing Garh on March 6, 2025, after the plaintiff’s counsel sought to examine the revenue official. The Patwari produced the relevant land records and stated that the property stood transferred in Malik’s name under Mutation No. 5159 following the sale deed. The land had previously been recorded in the name of Zaina, the official stated.
Assessing the documentary and oral evidence, the court held that the registered sale deed, supporting testimonies and revenue records provided sufficient grounds to accept Malik’s case regarding the purchase and possession of the property.
It also clarified that a mutation entry serves revenue-record purposes and does not, by itself, conclusively establish title. The registered sale deed, the court noted, constituted material evidence of the transfer of rights described in the document, which had to be duly proved and linked to the property for which relief was sought.
On the allegation of interference, the court acknowledged minor differences in the witnesses’ accounts regarding when the alleged conduct began. However, it found that these variations did not materially undermine their evidence, which remained consistent on the central allegation that Singh had asserted a claim over the land after Malik’s purchase.
The court further held that the defendant’s failure to contest the suit did not automatically establish the plaintiff’s allegations. Nevertheless, the evidence produced by Malik remained unrebutted, and the court found that it sufficiently established interference with his possession.
Referring to Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which provides for the grant of perpetual injunctions in specified circumstances, the court explained that such relief could be granted where a defendant invaded or threatened to invade a person’s right to or enjoyment of property, subject to the statutory requirements.
“In a suit seeking protection of possession, the court must determine whether the plaintiff has established his possession of the suit property and whether the defendant has interfered into or threatens to interfere with the possession without any lawful justification,” the judgment states.
The court added that a person in established possession is ordinarily entitled to protection against forcible or unlawful dispossession, even where a dispute over title may require separate adjudication. At the same time, it cautioned that an injunction cannot be used to establish a right that the plaintiff has failed to prove.
Concluding that Malik had produced sufficient evidence to warrant protection of his possession, the court decreed the suit in his favour and restrained Singh, his agents and persons acting on his behalf from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession of the identified 1,224-square-foot plot.
The defendant was also restrained from dispossessing Malik otherwise than in accordance with the law. The court directed that a decree sheet be drawn and ordered that there would be no order as to costs before disposing of the case and consigning the file to the records.
