CM(M) No. 307/2025 Serial No. 108 Supplementary List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR. CM(M) No. 307/2025 Kaka Ji & Anr. ….. Petitioner(s) Through: - Mr. A. M. Mir, Advocate. Versus Phoola Devi & Ors. ….. Respondent(s) Through:- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE O R D E R 06.08.2025. 1. In the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners herein have called in question the order dated 2nd January, 2025 passed by the court of Additional Mobile Magistrate, Ganderbal (for short the ‘trial court’) in the interim application, accompanied with a suit filed by the petitioners herein for declaration, partition and possession against the respondents herein in respect of the estate of one late Dina Nath Bhat as also the order dated 1st July, 2025, passed in an application by the petitioners herein by the Additional District Judge, Ganderbal (for short the ‘appellate court’) wherein challenge was thrown to the order dated 2nd of January, 2025. 2. Facts emerging from the record would reveal that the plaintiff/petitioner 1 claims to be the adopted son of above- named Dina Nath Bhat whereas the plaintiff/petitioner 2 herein claims to be the daughter of said late Dina Nath Bhat from his second wife, whereas the defendants/respondents herein are stated to be the daughters of the said Dina Nath Bhat from his CM(M) No. 307/2025 first wife. The plaintiffs in the suit supra contended that they also inherit the landed estate of the said Dina Nath Bhat, however, the defendants/respondents upon being requested by the plaintiffs/petitioners herein refused the same and did not undertake the partition of the landed estate of the said Dina Nath Bhat and instead got a mutation attested in respect thereof in their favour along with plaintiff/petitioner 2, excluding the plaintiff/petitioner 1 herein without any lawful justification. 3. In response to the said suit, the defendants/respondents herein upon entering appearance before the trial court contested the claim of the plaintiffs/petitioners and also sought vacation of the interim order by filing written statement to the suit as well as objections to the application for grant of interim relief where after the trial court in terms of order dated 2nd January, 2025, dismissed the interim application and vacated the initial interim order of status-quo granted on 08.08.2024. 4. Dissatisfied with said order of the trial court dated 02.02.2025, the plaintiffs/petitioners herein preferred an appeal before the appellate court on 4th January, 2025 which appeal as well came to be dismissed by the appellate court on the premise that the order passed by the trial court does not call for any interference. 5. Aggrieved of the aforesaid orders, the instant petition has been filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. Heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. CM(M) No. 307/2025 6. Perusal of the order of the trial court as well as the order of appellate court reveals that the landed estate of the deceased Dina Nath Bhat being 12 Kanals, 9 Marlas situated a Mouza Wakura Ganderbal, got devolved upon the plaintiff/petitioner 2 as also the defendants/respondents herein being the daughters of the said deceased from his two wives and consequently, a mutation bearing No. 968 had been attested by the revenue authorities, conferring inheritance rights upon the plaintiff/ petitioner 2 as well as defendants/respondents herein, qua the said landed estate of the deceased late Dina Nath Bhat. Record reveals that the plaintiff/petitioner 1 herein have had challenged the said mutation No. 968 in a revision petition before the Assistant Commissioner, Kashmir which revision petition stands dismissed on 01st April, 2024. 7. Based upon the factual position, both the courts below have observed and opined that the principles, governing the grant of injunctions being prim-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss of injury do not either exist or were found established in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner 1 herein as against the defendants/respondents herein including the plaintiff/ petitioner 2 and have thus, rightly declined the grant of injunction to the plaintiff/petitioner 1. 8. Record manifestly tends to show that both the court below have concurrently declined the grant of injunction to the plaintiff/petitioner 1 in terms of the impugned orders on valid and good reasons, this Court is not thus inclined to interfere with the CM(M) No. 307/2025 said orders, that too, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 9. Resultantly, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (Javed Iqbal Wani) Judge SRINAGAR 06.08.2025 “Abdul Rashid” Whether approved for reporting? Yes/No Abdul Rashid Ganaie I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document :14.08.2025 10:33