CM(M) No.466/2025 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) No.466/2025 CM No.6991/2025 ABDUL MAJEED DAR & ORS. ... PETITIONER(S) Through: - Mr. Imtiyaz Ahmad Sofi, Advocate. Vs. MST. AISHA BEGUM & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S) Through: - CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER (ORAL) 28.10.2025 1) The petitioners, through the medium of present petition, have challenged order dated 22.10.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kralpora, on an application field by them for framing of additional issues. 2) It appears that the respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit against the petitioners/defendants before the Court of Civil Judge/Munsiff, Kralpora (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”) seeking partition of the suit property. In the said suit, the plaintiffs have claimed that the suit property is joint and unpartitioned and that the defendants, despite having been requested to partition the suit property, have refused to do so. It also appears that the petitioners/defendants, in their written statement, have, inter alia, taken a stand that the suit property is not liable to be partitioned, inasmuch as relinquishment deed dated 10.01.1985 has been executed in favour of defendant Sr. No.102 Suppl List CM(M) No.466/2025 No.1, besides there being an oral gift executed by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs in favour of aforesaid defendant on 10.01.1985. 3) During the pendency of the suit, the defendants moved an application before the trial court seeking framing of additional issues with regard to limitation and jurisdiction. The learned trial court, while framing the issues with regard to limitation and jurisdiction and posting the matter for final disposal, has opined that both these issues are legal in nature and do not call for any evidence to be led by the parties. 4) The petitioners have challenged the impugned order, primarily, on the ground that the additional issues framed by the learned trial court vide the impugned order, particularly the issue with regard to limitation, is a mixed issue of fact and law, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial court to permit the petitioners/defendants to lead evidence to prove the said issue. It has been contended that because relinquishment deed dated 10.01.1985 was executed in favour of defendant/petitioner No.1 and the oral gift was made by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs in favour of the said petitioner in the year 1985, therefore, the suit is barred by limitation and for proving this fact, it was necessary that the defendants should have been allowed to lead evidence. CM(M) No.466/2025 5) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record of the case. 6) If we have a look at the record of the case, the learned trial court vide its order dated 01.06.2022 has framed the following issues: 1. Whether suit property comprising of movable and immovable property under survey Nos. 994min (01 kanal- 10 marlas), 1000 min (01 kanal) 1001 min (01 kanal – 01 marla), 1042 min (05 kanals – 17 marlas), 1078 min (11 marlas), 860 (05 kanals), 873 (01 kanal – 06 marlas), 874 (14 marlas), 878 (03 marlas) 889 min (13 marlas), 938 (05 kanals-03 marlas), 974 (01 kanal 19 marlas), 958 min (13 marlas) and 1993 min (01 kanal-15 marlas) including standing fruit bearing trees, three residential houses and other structures constructed thereon, situated at Mouza Kralpora is joint and un-partitioned in between plaintiffs and proforma defendants? (OPP) 2. Whether defendant No. 1 has in league with revenue department illegally and falsely got mutated whole suit property in his name on the basis of fraudulent oral gift? (OPP) 3. Whether suit of plaintiffs is hit by order 07 rule 11 CPC as plaintiffs have no cause of action against defendants? (OPD) 4. Whether plaintiffs have relinquished the suit property in favour of defendant no. 1 voluntarily? (OPD) 5. The relief to which parties are entitled. 7) It appears that on 29.11.2022, following additional issue came to be framed by the learned trial court: “Whether in view of Section 31 of Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, relinquishment deed dated 10/1/1985 titled Mst. Aisah Begum and ors. in favour of Ab. Majeed Dar and oral gift by Rehman Bhat in favour of Ab. Majeed Dar dated 10/1/985 and ensuing mutation number 510 dated 22/4/1997 are invalid and null and void as there was blanket ban on the transfer of immovable property? (OPP)” CM(M) No.466/2025 8) A perusal of the aforesaid issues, particularly issue No.4 framed on 01.06.2022, clearly shows that the learned trial court has framed an issue “as to whether the plaintiffs have relinquished the suit property in favour of defendant No.1 voluntarily”. Besides this, another issue has been framed on 29.11.2022 with regard to validity of the relinquishment deed and oral gift made in favour of defendant No.1. If from the evidence which has been led by the defendants, it is established that the plaintiffs have relinquished the suit property in favour of defendant No.1 and that the relinquishment deed as well as oral gift made in his favour are valid, the suit of the plaintiffs would automatically become time barred. Since the parties have already gone to trial on both these issues, there is no need to allow the parties to lead further evidence as regards the question of limitation. The learned trial court has, therefore, rightly proceeded to post the matter for final disposal on the basis of the evidence already led by the parties after framing of aforesaid two additional issues. 9) For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned trial court. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly along with connected CM. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge Srinagar 28.10.2025 “Bhat Altaf-Secy”