Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Jan 1: Principal District Judge Kulgam Tahir Khurshid Raina has announced judgment in 20 year old civil controversy in case titled Heemali Versus Abdul Rashid Ganie and Another and set-aside the judgment of Sub-Judge Kulgam.
The judgment of the Sub-Judge Kulgam was challenged on the ground that the Trial Court in one breath held plaintiffs entitled to a definite share in the suit land in accordance with the Shariat law and by another breath has held Agreement to Sell of the suit land by the co-sharer as legally valid document.
“The order impugned has been passed in violation of set principles of law as contained in Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act. Further, the Trial Court has accorded sanction to a sham document “agreement to sell” purported to be executed by defendant in favour of Abdul Rehman Bhat (now dead) which was illegal, void ab initio, contrary to the mandate of Transfer of Property Act, especially of Section 138 of Transfer of Property Act and Contract Act”, it was submitted before the Principal District Judge.
The Principal District Judge observed, “it is quite indispensable to mention here that this whole case had a missing legal foundation based on rank ignorance and violation of the mandate of Section 138 of the Transfer of Property Act but still it survived for a long time in the Trial Court”
Quite undisputedly, the “agreement to sell” in discussion was an unregistered document as confirmed by counsel on a pointed query to him during the course of argument and even clearly reflected from its certified copy, the Principal District Judge said, adding “so here lies the catch which was concealed by the contesting defendant from the court since the inception of the litigation”.
While allowing the appeal of the appellants/plaintiff’s, the judgment/decree dated 31.08.2020, passed by the Court of Sub Judge, Kulgam was set-aside. “The suit of the plaintiffs in terms of the relief claimed in the amended suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants along with costs”, the court said, adding “let a decree be drawn up accordingly. The counter claim of the defendant’s stands dismissed as not maintainable under law”.
Follow our WhatsApp channel