news details |
|
|
| HC decides litigation after 40 years | | |
Jammu, Nov 15
Justice Mansoor Ahmed Mir of J&K High Court Srinagar Wing has decided a litigation, which was started on February 26, 1966, on a dispute of possession of land measuring 12 Kanals and decided it after 40 years.
While deciding the long pending litigation in the State Judiciary, Justice Mansoor Ahmed Mir observed that this appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge Srinagar on August 12, 1987 in an appeal titled Abdul Rashid and Others Vs Nabir Rather and others confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Munsiff Ganderbal in the suit titled Nabir Rather Vs Ramzan Rather. By this judgment, the Court is going to lift the veil of the list which is on board of this High Court for the last about 19 years.
The fact of the case that one Nabir Rather filed a suit for permanent injunction against Ramzan Rather on February 26, 1966 with the prayer that defendant Ramzan Rather be restrained from causing any kind of interference with the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over suit land measuring 12 kanal situated at Minigam, Ganderbal. During the pendency of suit, plaintiff moved an application seeking permission to amend the plaint in order to incorporate the relief of declaration. Said application came to be allowed on August 11, 1970 and framed six issues including that Mohammed Rather deceased had sold a part of the suit land to the defendant and the plaintiff is the adopted son of Mohammed Rather and is as such in possession of the Suit land as owner and Mohd Rather deceased had executed a will in favour of his adopted daughter in respect of a part of the suit land.
The appellant-defendant has not challenged the judgment decree of the appellate Court related to three issues thus it has attained finality and the case came to be remanded back to the Trial Court for deciding issue whether Mohammed Rather deceased had sold a part of the suit land to the defendant? Accordingly Trial Court decided this issue in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff vides judgment dated September 3, 1983. The appellant defendant preferred an appeal against said judgment and decree, which came to be dismissed.
Justice Mansoor Ahmed Mir in the judgment after hearing Advocate N A Beigh appearing for the appellants whereas Advocate M I Dar appeared for respondent NO 1 and none present for respondent NO 2 observed that the finding returned by the Trial Court is the findings of fact. The Trial Court after appreciating and scanning evidence after considering the rival arguments came to the conclusion that the defendants had failed to prove that Mohammed rather deceased had sold a part of suit land to the defendant and decided the said issue in favour of the plaintiff. Appellant-defendant assailed the judgment of Trial Court before 1st Appellate Court. Appellate Court while passing the impugned judgment and decree also appreciated the evidence and came to the conclusion that the findings returned by the Trial Court were factually and legally correct. Thus the finding is fact and can’t be interfered with second appeal. The appellant could not indicate that the finding is in any way perverse. In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal and accordingly second appeal is dismissed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
