1 | P a g e Serial No. 4 REGULAR CAUSE LIST HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR RP 9/2024 MST. RAJA AND ANR …Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. P. S. Ahmad, Advocate Vs. BASHIR AHMAD SHEIKH AND ORS. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. S. M. Ayoub, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) ORDER (Oral) 03.07.2026 1. This review petition by the petitioners seeks recall of the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2024, passed by this Court in Civil 2nd Appeal No. 7/2006 titled “Bashir Ahmad Sheikh and Ors. Vs. Mohammad Yousaf Mir and Ors”, whereby this Court has allowed the Civil 2nd Appeal and reversed the judgment of the 1st Appellate Court to the extent the 1st Appellate Court had found the suit barred by limitation and declined to pass the decree. The operative portion of the judgment sought to be reviewed reads thus: 24. Viewed from any angle, I find the judgment flawed to the extent it has found the suit of the plaintiffs not maintainable on the ground that plaintiffs could not prove that they were in possession of the suit property within twelve years next prior to the institution of suit. This appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The judgment and decree of the 1st Appellate Court to the extent aforesaid is held bad in law, and therefore, set aside. The suit of the plaintiffs is decreed in their favour and against the 2 | P a g e defendants. The plaintiffs are held entitled to possession of the suit property and, accordingly, defendants 2 to 4 are directed to deliver the possession thereof to the plaintiffs. 2. The impugned judgment and decree is sought to be reviewed by the review petitioners on the ground that judgment and decree suffers from an error apparent on the face of record in that this Court has, while decreeing the suit, directed the review petitioners to deliver the possession of the entire suit property including the property which was subject matter of the agreement to sell. It is argued by learned counsel for the review petitioners that the issue No.3 framed in the suit which pertains to agreement to sell was decided by the trial Court against the plaintiffs (the appellants in the 2nd Appeal) and the same was not specifically dealt with or interfered with by the 1st Appellate Court. 3. It is argued that this Court while deciding the Civil 2nd Appeal did not separately discuss or consider the impact of agreement to sell and the findings of fact returned by the trial Court and passed a decree encompassing the entire suit property which included the property which was subject matter of agreement to sell. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, it is necessary to first set out issue No.3 framed in the suit. Whether the agreement to sell confers any right on the plaintiffs and on this count whether suit is maintainable? OPP. 5. This issue has been decided by the trial Court against the plaintiffs (the appellants in the Civil 2nd Appeal) on the ground that Mohd Yousaf Mir, who was not in possession of the land, subject matter of agreement to sell, could not have executed any 3 | P a g e agreement to sell, though the same was found to be a valid document and not executed on account of any deceit or fraud. The 1st Appellate Court, for reasons which are not discernable in the judgment, discussed the aforesaid issue or returned any findings except holding that agreement to sell pertains to only a portion of land and, therefore, it is inconsequential to determine the issue in the suit. 6. Since this Court concentrated on the substantial questions of law framed in the 2nd Appeal and, therefore this aspect escaped the attention of this Court. This Court has reversed the judgment of Appellate Court only to the extent it has held the suit barred by limitation and has decreed it by providing that the plaintiffs (appellants in the 2nd Appeal) would be entitled to the possession of the suit property which is subject matter of the sale deed. 7. This was so because both the 1st Appellate Court as well as this Court held the sale deed proved and validly executed. Since this Court while decreeing the suit held the plaintiffs entitled to possession of the suit property and, accordingly, directed the review petitioners to deliver the possession thereof to the plaintiffs, as such, the expression suit property is capable of being construed as the entire ‘suit property’ including the property covered by agreement to sell. This Court is in agreement with the learned counsel for the review petitioners that issue No.3 needs to be considered and determined by this Court on the basis of evidence on record and the findings of fact returned by the two Courts below. 8. For all these reasons, this review petition is partially allowed, the judgement dated 30.01.2024, is recalled only to the extent of suit property which is subject matter of agreement to sell. 4 | P a g e 9. The judgment with regard to the suit property which is subject matter of sale deeds does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of record, and therefore, needs to be affirmed. To avoid any confusion, the judgment and decree passed by this Court dated 30.01.2024, shall hold good with regard to suit property which is subject matter of two sale deeds discussed in the judgment and decree. The review petitioner herein shall be obliged to deliver the possession of the property which is subject matter of sale deeds only. The Civil 2nd Appeal shall be considered afresh only on the aspect which has remained undecided i.e., effect of Agreement to Sell and claim of plaintiff to possession on the basis thereof and which I have already explained earlier. 10. Let the Civil 2nd Appeal be listed again on 31.07.2026, for considering the issue No.3 which necessarily pertains to the suit property, subject matter of agreement to sell executed between the appellants and respondent No.5 Mohd Yousaf Mir. (Sanjeev Kumar) Chief Justice (Acting) SRINAGAR: 03.07.2026 Aadil