Sr. No.12 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case: CM(M) No. 47/2025 CM No. 859/2025 Cav No. 71/2025 Mohd. Iqbal S/o Mohmdu, R/o Jawari (Sumber) Tehsil & District Ramban …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Koshal Parihar, Advocate. V/s 01. Ram Singh, S/o Faqir R/o Bhajmasa Tehsil Banihal. 02. Amar Singh S/o Faqir Singh, R/o Bhajmasa Tehsil Banihal District Ramban 03. Rashpal Singh, S/o Faqir Singh, R/o Bhajmasa Tehsil Banihal District Ramban. 04. Munshi Ram, S/o Faqir Singh R/o Bhajmasa Tehsil Banihal District Ramban …. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 03.03.2025(ORAL) 01. Through the medium of the present petition, the petitioner/defendant has challenged the order dated 25th February 2022 passed by the learned Sub-Judge Ramban as upheld by learned District Judge Ramban vide his order dated 18th December 2024. 02. Issue notice to the respondents. 03. Mr. Amit Sharma, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 04. Heard and considered. -2- 05. It appears that the respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit against the petitioner/defendant before the learned Sub Judge Ramban (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’) seeking declaration that they are owners of land measuring 06 kanals (local) under Khasra No. 39 min situated at Sumber Jawari Tehsil and District Ramban. A further relief for recovery of possession and permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the suit property has also been sought. Along with the suit the respondents/plaintiffs filed an application for grant of interim prohibitory injunction against the defendant/petitioner herein. The said application came to be decided by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 25th February 2022 whereby the defendant/petitioner has been temporarily restrained from transferring or creating any 3rd party interest or raising any permanent structure over the suit land till final disposal of the main suit. However, interim injunction to the extent of restraining the petitioner/defendant from interfering in the suit property has ben refused. 06. The aforesaid order came to be assailed by the petitioner/defendant by way of an appeal before the learned District Judge who vide impugned order dated 18th December 2024 dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the learned Trial Court. 07. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant has contended that the learned Trial Court has, while passing the impugned order, despite clearly observing that the plaintiffs/respondents do not have a prima facie case, proceeded to pass an interim injunction in their favour. It is being contended that once such a finding was recorded by the learned Trial Court, interim injunction could not have been passed by the said Court. It has been further contended that the petitioner /defendant is in possession of the suit property for the last 50 years and he has already constructed -3- a house thereon and, in case, he is not allowed to even effect repairs of the house, he will face irreparable loss. He has further submitted that the petitioner/defendant is ready to give an undertaking that in case the respondents/ plaintiffs succeed in the suit, he would not claim any compensation for the construction that he may have raised or may raise in future. 08. So far as the observation of the learned Trial Court that there is no prima facie case in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs is concerned, the same, it appears has been made with reference to the contention of the plaintiffs that they are in possession of the suit property. It appears from the pleadings of the parties and the record that it is an admitted case that the property in question belongs to the respondents/plaintiffs who are holding title thereto. It is also an admitted position that petitioner/defendant is in possession of the suit property since long on the basis of an Agreement to Sell. Thus, the respondents/plaintiffs may not have a prima facie case as regards their contention that they are in possession of suit property but they certainly have a prime facie case so far as the question of title to the suit property is concerned. It is for this reason that the learned Trial Court has, while passing the final order in the interim application, declined to grant interim injunction against the defendant so far as the possession of the suit property is concerned but has, in order to preserve the subject matter of lis, directed that no third party interest shall be created in the suit property I do not find any ground to interfere in the said direction of the learned Trial Court. 09. 09. That takes us to the question as to whether the petitioner/defendant should be allowed to raise construction on the suit property. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant is right in his submission that the petitioner has raised construction of his house and is residing in the said house for the last so many years -4- which, it appears, is an admitted position. Therefore, if petitioner/defendant is not allowed to even renovate the house, it will work harshly against him. 10. In view of the above, the order dated 25th February 2022 passed by the learned Trial Court as upheld by the learned Appellate Court, is modified to the extent that the petitioner/defendant shall be at liberty to renovate the existing structure on the suit property at his own risk and responsibility. 11. The instant petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE Jammu 03.03.2025 SUNITA/PS SUNITA KOUL 2025.03.04 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document