Dismissed¶¶31

Kaka Ji and Anr. v. Phoola Devi and Ors.

J&K HC6 Aug 2025CM(M)/307/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227; supervisory jurisdiction; interim injunction refused; prima facie case; balance of convenience; irreparable loss/injury; partition and possession suit; declaration suit; adopted son claim; daughters from two wives; inheritance; mutation No. 968; revision dismissed; status quo vacated; Additional Mobile Magistrate Ganderbal; Additional District Judge Ganderbal; estate of Dina Nath Bhat; CM(M) No. 307/2025; Kaka Ji v. Phoola Devi; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The principles governing grant of injunctions - prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss/injury - do not either exist or were found established in favour of plaintiff/petitioner 1 against the defendants/respondents including plaintiff/petitioner 2; both courts below therefore rightly declined injunction to plaintiff/petitioner 1.

Kaka Ji and Anr. Vs Phoola Devi and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | J&K HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court rightly dismissed the interim application and declined interim injunction to plaintiff/petitioner 1 for want of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss/injury. +1 more

¶¶25

Court's answer

¶¶25

Ratio / Principle

Both courts below having concurrently declined the grant of injunction to plaintiff/petitioner 1 on valid and good reasons, this Court was not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution; the petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.

¶¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution dismissed (Javed Iqbal Wani, J., High Court of J&K and Ladakh at Srinagar, 06.08.2025). Plaintiff/petitioner 1, claiming to be the adopted son of late Dina Nath Bhat, and plaintiff/petitioner 2, claiming to be his daughter from his second wife, sued the respondents (daughters of the deceased from his first wife) for declaration, partition and possession of the deceased's landed estate of 12 Kanals 9 Marlas at Mouza Wakura, Ganderbal. The Additional Mobile Magistrate, Ganderbal, by order dated 2nd January, 2025, dismissed the interim application and vacated the status quo order dated 08.08.2024; the Additional District Judge, Ganderbal, dismissed the appeal by order dated 1st July, 2025. Mutation No. 968 had conferred inheritance rights on petitioner 2 and the respondents, and petitioner 1's revision against it had been dismissed on 01.04.2024 by the Assistant Commissioner, Kashmir. Holding that prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss/injury were neither existing nor established in favour of petitioner 1, the High Court found the concurrent orders well-reasoned and declined interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.

¶1

Serial No. 108 Supplementary List

¶2

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.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Phoola Devi & Ors.

¶9

….. Respondent(s)

¶10

Through:-

¶11

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE

¶12

O R D E R 06.08.2025.

¶13

In the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners herein have called in question the order dated 2^nd 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 1^st 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 2^nd of January, 2025.

¶14

Facts emerging from the record would reveal that the plaintiff/petitioner 1 claims to be the adopted son of abovenamed 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

¶15

CM(M) No. 307/2025

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

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.

¶18

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 2^nd January, 2025, dismissed the interim application and vacated the initial interim order of status-quo granted on 08.08.2024.

¶19

Dissatisfied with said order of the trial court dated 02.02.2025, the plaintiffs/petitioners herein preferred an appeal before the appellate court on 4^th 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.

¶20

Aggrieved of the aforesaid orders, the instant petition has been filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court.

¶21

Heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the record .

¶22

CM(M) No. 307/2025

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

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 01^st April, 2024.

¶25

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.

¶26

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

¶27

CM(M) No. 307/2025

¶28

Page 3 of 4

¶29

said orders, that too, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under

¶30

Article 227 of the Constitution.

¶31

Resultantly, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

¶32

(Javed Iqbal Wani) Judge

¶33

SRINAGAR

¶34

06.08.2025 “Abdul Rashid”

¶35

Whether approved for reporting? Yes/No

¶36

Abdul Rashid Ganaie I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this documentCM(M) No. 307/2025 :14.08.2025 10:33

¶37

Page 4 of 4

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 2nd January, 2025 of the Additional Mobile Magistrate, Ganderbal dismissing the interim application and vacating the interim status quo order dated 08.08.2024, together with the order dated 1st July, 2025 of the Additional District Judge, Ganderbal dismissing the appeal against the trial court's order.¶¶13
Additional Mobile Magistrate, Ganderbal (trial court); Additional District Judge, Ganderbal (appellate court) · 2nd January, 2025 (trial court); 1st July, 2025 (appellate court)
Prior proceeding
Suit accompanied the interim application, filed by the petitioners (plaintiffs) against the respondents (defendants) for declaration, partition and possession in respect of the estate of one late Dina Nath Bhat.¶¶13
Prior proceeding
Defendants refused partition of the landed estate and instead got a mutation attested in their favour along with plaintiff/petitioner 2, excluding plaintiff/petitioner 1.¶¶17
Prior proceeding
Defendants entered appearance before the trial court, contested the plaintiffs' claim, sought vacation of the interim order by filing written statement to the suit and objections to the interim-relief application.¶¶18
Prior proceeding
Trial court, by order dated 2nd January, 2025, dismissed the interim application and vacated the initial interim order of status quo granted on 08.08.2024.¶¶18
Prior proceeding
Plaintiffs/petitioners preferred an appeal before the appellate court on 4th January, 2025, which was dismissed on the premise that the trial court's order did not call for interference.¶¶19
Prior proceeding
Mutation bearing No. 968 was attested by the revenue authorities conferring inheritance rights upon plaintiff/petitioner 2 and the defendants/respondents qua the landed estate.¶¶24
Prior proceeding
Plaintiff/petitioner 1 challenged mutation No. 968 in a revision petition before the Assistant Commissioner, Kashmir, which stood dismissed on 1st April, 2024.¶¶24

Kaka Ji and Anr. v. Phoola Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaka Ji and Anr. v. Phoola Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nirmal Khajuria and Others Vs Raj Kumar

Yawar Abbas Bhat Vs Zehra Nazir

Mohammad Akbar Ganai Vs Farooq Ahmad Ganai.

Ashaq Hussain Bhat and Anr. Vs Fayaz Ahmad Bhat and Ors.

Shiv Dharshan Singh Vs Shiv Pal Singh and Another

Parvaiz Ahmad Bhat and Ors. Vs Azad Hussain Zargar and Anr.

Manzoor Ahmad Sofi Vs Abdul Rashid Sofi and Anr.

Ganesh Kumar Vs Sher Singh and Another

Imtiyaz Ahmad Dar and Ors. Vs Union Territory of J and K and Ors. (Animal and Sheep Husbandry Department)

Mukhtar Ahmad Ganai Vs Shabir Ahmad Bhat

Yawar Abbas Bhat Vs Zehra Nazir

Gulla Khan and Ors. Vs Ghulam Nabi Wani

Aijaz Ahmad Bhat Vs Senior Superintendent of Police Kupwara and Ors.

Mitali Sharma and Ors. Vs Raj Kumar Goswami