NAZAKAT ALI vs RAJA SHOUKAT ALI S — 2025 CLC 933 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

NAZAKAT ALI VS RAJA SHOUKAT ALI S. 100---Concurrent findings of facts---Second appeal---Scope---Concurrent findings of facts cannot be disturbed in second appeal until and unless any misreading, non-reading of evidence or violation of any law is pointed out. Citation Name: 2025 CLC 933 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRBookmark this Case NAZAKAT ALI VS RAJA SHOUKAT ALI S. 54---Suit for perpetual injunction---Dispute---Documentary evidence---Wrong mutation entry subsequently rectified---Claim of the plaintiffs was that the suit-land was purchased by their father from defendants vide sale deed in the year 1965; which land was in their possession and they had constructed houses thereupon but defendants were flexing their muscles to interfere into their peaceful possession in the garb of wrong entries in the revenue record---Plea of the defendants was that the sale-deed-in-question had been tampered as instead of 4 kanals and 9 marlas of land, 4 kanals and 19 marlas had been entered---Suit was concurrently decreed in favour of plaintiffs---Validity---Record revealed that the plaintiffs placed on record an original sale-deed dated 17.04.1965 having been tendered/exhibited in evidence which, inter alia, revealed that total 4 kanals and 19 marlas of land had been purchased and relevant mutation (No. 210) was also attested but inadvertently the acreage of purchased land in the mutation was entered as 4 kanals and 9 marlas; however , in the recent settlement, the entries in the revenue record had been corrected and total purchased land, was entered as 4 kanals and 19 marlas---Defendants had not denied the sale deed dated 17.04.1965 but their stance was that the sale deed had been tampered by the defendants however, no tampering had been found rather controversy created between the parties was only due to the wrong entry in mutation No. 210 which had been rectified subsequently during the recent settlement but defendants in garb of said wrong entry in mutation No.210 tried to take possession of land which had already been sold by their predecessors to the father of plaintiffs---As the plaintiffs had proved their stance that vide sale deed dated 17.04.1965 their father purchased 4 kanals and 19 marlas of land, they were in possession of the purchased land and defendants had no concern with the same land, thus the Courts below accurately decreed the suit filed by plaintiffs/respondents for perpetual injunction---No misreading, non-reading had been noticed in concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below---Second appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

NAZAKAT ALI vs RAJA SHOUKAT ALI S — 2025 CLC 933 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC