Sr. No. 04 Regular List IN THE HIGH C0URT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR RPC No. 7/2017 Mohammad Yousuf Beigh and Another …Petitioner(s)/appellant(s) Through: Mr. G. M. Shah, Advocate Vs. Muzaffar Ahmad Bhat and others ...Respondent(s) Through: None CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE O R D E R 21.02.2025 1. A civil suit came to be commenced by the respondent No. 1 Muzaffar Ahmad Bhat, son of one Abdul Ahad Bhat. The suit was commenced on 14.02.2002 on File No. 302/Diwani before the court of Sub Judge, Anantnag. 2. In the civil suit, the sole defendant was Khazer Bhat S/o Mohammad Bhat R/o Chirhama, Tehsil Kulgam as it was then. 3. In the suit, a decree for declaration was claimed to the effect that the plaintiff Muzaffar Ahmad Bhat, as being adopted son of defendant Khazer Bhat, was the owner of the suit property on the basis of an oral gift and to that extent the defendant Khazer Bhat had no right title or interest to deal with the same. 4. The suit, when it was not taken upon its next date, from nowhere came to be purportedly settled by virtue of an alleged compromise deed between the plaintiff and sole defendant paving the way for passing of a compromise decree dated 05.03.2002. 5. The purported compromise was presented on 18.02.2002 and had a thumb impression attributed to the sole defendant, meaning thereby the defendant Arif Hameed I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 01.03.2025 was an illiterate person. However the sole defendant is said to have been represented and identified by an Advocate Nazir Ahmad Tak. 6. The trial court of Sub Judge, Anantnag came to decree the suit on 05.03.2002. 7. Assuming for the sake of arguments that the disposal of the civil suit in the form of the compromise decree was proceeding on a validly entered compromise by the defendant with the plaintiff, still the said decree by itself was not effective as it was supposed to have been registered under the Registration Act, Smvt. 1977 given the fact purporting to scale right, title or interest in suit property. 8. Finding in suit property that the plaintiff Muzaffar Ahmad Bhat on the basis of the decree has set himself to be the owner of the property of Khazer Bhat, Mohammad Yousuf Beigh and Gulshana Akhter, being children of Mst. Shammali stepped forward to maintain a civil 1st appeal against said decree dated 05.03.2002, purportedly based upon the compromise between the sole plaintiff and defendant. 9. The said civil 1st appeal, although time barred having been filed on 16.05.2009 on File No. 06/Appeal, came to be disposed of on 24.06.2013 by the Principal District Judge, Anantnag by setting aside the decree and remanding the suit. 10. One prominent fact which came to be adverted to in the appeal was that the sole defendant Khazer Bhat had expired on 28.02.2002 that is before decreeing of suit. 11. The plaintiff Muzaffar Ahmad Bhat, being aggrieved of the outcome of the civil 1st appeal as preferred by the two appellants whom he reckoned to be nobody in the eyes of law to feel agitated about the outcome of the civil suit so filed by him against Khazer Bhat came forward with a civil miscellaneous appeal on 130/2013 against the appellate court of Principal Arif Hameed I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 01.03.2025 District Judge, Anantnag’s judgment and decree dated 24.06.2013 of remanding the suit to the trial court below. 12. In his civil miscellaneous appeal, the appellant Muzaffar Ahmad Bhat came to name not only Mohammad Yousuf Beigh and Gulshana Akhter, the appellants of civil 1st appeal, but also fourteen (14) other persons as respondents. The addition of these fourteen (14) persons as respondents is for the reason is best known to the said appellant Muzaffar Ahmad Bhat. 13. This court, in terms of a judgment dated 21.08.2015, came to allow civil miscellaneous appeal by setting aside the judgment dated 24.06.2013 of the appellate court of Principal District Judge, Anantnag and further directed the trial court decree dated 05.03.2002 to hold the field. 14. Aggrieved of the outcome of the civil miscellaneous appeal 130/2013, one of two original appellants of the civil 1st appeal, Mr. Mohammad Yousuf Beigh co-joined by Ghulam Hassan Bhat who is said to be brother of the deceased Khazer Bhat, have come forward with a review petition which has been pending adjudication before this court w.e.f April, 2016. 15. Ghulam Hassan Bhat as petitioner No. 2 in the review petition has taken liberty of being a co-petitioner with Mohammad Yousuf Bhat on account of the fact that petitioner No. 2 Ghulam Hassan Bhat was figuring one of the respondents in the civil miscellaneous appeal filed by the plaintiff Muzaffar Ahmad Bhat. 16. Review petition is sought to be maintained on the ground that there is an error apparent on the face of the record not only in the context of the judgment passed by this court but on the record of the trial court itself and that is the element of fraud which had set in on account of non-sharing of the fact of demise of sole defendant Khazer Bhat having taken place on 28.02.2002 and supposedly being well-known to sole plaintiff Muzaffar Ahmad Bhat who claimed himself to be adopted son of Khazer Bhat and Arif Hameed I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 01.03.2025 still the fact of death was kept withheld from being disclosed to the trial court for the purpose of enabling the trial court to deal with the situation rather than proceeding ahead and decreeing the suit. 17. It is this salient aspect which was all alongwith present and came to be taken cognizance by the appellate court of Principal District Judge, Anantnag but came to suffer an overlook by this court while disposing of the civil miscellaneous appeal and thus, there is an error apparent on the record of this case to warrant indulgence for review so as to revive civil miscellaneous appeal for adjudication on merits by dealing with the death of a sole defendant being not shared with the trial court before passing of a purported compromise based decree in the matter relatable to a estate of dead person. If the scenario would amount to nullity in the eyes of law, then surely the entire proceedings right from the inception post death of Khazer Bhat was all along nullity and remained so even when this court was disposing of civil miscellaneous appeal No. 130/2013 and at present also when review petition is being dealt with, as such, review is allowed. The judgment dated 21.08.2015 passed by this court is set aside and appeal CIMA No. 130/2013 is restored to be reheard. 18. Let the appeal bearing CIMA No. 130/2013 be restored to its original number for the sake of hearing. List CIMA No. 130/2013 on 12.03.2025. when this court would put the appellants to notice. 19. Disposed of. (RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 21.02.2025 ARIF Arif Hameed I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 01.03.2025