Jammu Kashmir High Court Upholds Injunction in Kupwara Land Dispute | Kashmir Life

SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld concurrent orders of two subordinate courts granting interim protection in a property dispute from Kupwara district, holding that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to reassess factual findings or substitute judicial discretion merely because another view is possible.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal in CM(M) No. 147/2026 titled Farooq Ahmad Mir versus Habib-ul-llah Bhat and Others.

The matter was reserved on May 5, 2026, pronounced on May 6, 2026, and uploaded on May 7, 2026.

The petitioner, 70-year-old Farooq Ahmad Mir of Lalpora in Kupwara district, had challenged an order dated February 28, 2026 passed by the Principal District Judge, Kupwara, which upheld an earlier order of the Munsiff Court, Sogam dated May 30, 2024 granting interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs.

The petitioner was represented by SM Saleem.

The respondents in the case were Habib-ul-llah Bhat, Noor-u-Allah Bhat and Mushtaq Ahmad Mir, residents of Lalpora Lolab in Kupwara district.

According to the judgment, the dispute arose after the respondents filed a civil suit for permanent injunction before the Munsiff Court at Sogam, claiming possession over a property comprising land, a building and an access pathway. Alongside the suit, the plaintiffs sought interim protection against alleged interference.

The trial court initially granted an ex-parte interim order on December 28, 2023, which was later confirmed on May 30, 2024 after hearing both sides.

Aggrieved by the confirmation of the injunction, the petitioner approached the Principal District Judge, Kupwara, through a miscellaneous appeal. The appellate court dismissed the appeal on February 28, 2026, observing that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of possession and that the balance of convenience lay in maintaining status quo.

The petitioner subsequently invoked the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, arguing that both courts had wrongly relied upon an unregistered and unstamped agreement to sell. According to the petitioner, such a document neither created any legal right in immovable property nor could be admitted in evidence. It was further argued that the property in question was joint and undivided and therefore incapable of lawful alienation.

Rejecting the plea, the High Court held that while an agreement to sell may not confer title, it can still be relied upon for collateral purposes, including determining the nature and character of possession.

The court observed that at the stage of deciding an application for temporary injunction, the inquiry is confined to examining whether a prima facie case exists, whether the balance of convenience favours protection, and whether irreparable injury is likely to occur.

Justice Nargal relied extensively on Supreme Court precedents including Zenit Mataplast Pvt Ltd versus State of Maharashtra, Wander Ltd versus Antox India Pvt Ltd, S Kaladevi versus VR Somasundaram and P Suresh versus D Kalaivani.

Quoting settled law governing interlocutory injunctions, the court reiterated that appellate or supervisory courts should not interfere with discretionary orders unless they suffer from patent arbitrariness, perversity or gross illegality.

The court further held that in suits seeking simple injunctions, possession assumes paramount importance and even a person without perfect title may be entitled to protection against unlawful interference if found in settled possession.

On the issue of the unregistered agreement to sell, the High Court observed that such documents can legally be looked into for collateral purposes, including assessing possession, even if they cannot establish ownership rights.

The court also declined to examine the petitioner’s argument that the property was joint and undivided, holding that such disputed questions of fact could only be decided after a full trial and appreciation of evidence.

Holding that no jurisdictional error, perversity or illegality had been demonstrated in the concurrent findings of the subordinate courts, the High Court dismissed the petition and upheld both the appellate and trial court orders.

However, the court clarified that observations made in the judgment were confined to adjudication of the interim dispute and would not influence the final decision in the civil suit, which would be decided independently on the basis of evidence led during trial.