Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Rajiv Krishan Nanda vs Praveena Hoon & Ors on 22 August, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
Reserved on: 01.08.2025
Pronounced on: 22.08.2025
Case FAO No. 8/2024
No.:- c/w
CR No. 9/2024
Rajiv Krishan Nanda
.....Appellant
Through: Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Mujeeb Fazili, Advocate.
Appellant is present in person.
Vs
Praveena Hoon & ors.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Abhik Chimney, Advocate with
Mr. Sheikh Omar Farooq, Advocate for
R-1.
Mr. Mubashir Mukhtar, Advocate for
R-2 & 3.
Coram: HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
JUDGEMENT
1. Through the medium of this common judgment, the revision petition filed by the petitioner/defendant No. 1 against order dated 15.09.2023 passed by the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Srinagar whereby application of the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been 2 FAO No. 8/2024 & CR No. 9/2024 dismissed and the miscellaneous appeal filed by the appellant/defendant No. 1 against order dated 15.09.2023 passed by the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Srinagar whereby an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff has been allowed and an interim injunction has been passed against the appellant/defendant No. 1, are proposed to be disposed of.
2. It appears that a civil suit for partition, declaration and permanent injunction came to be filed by the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter to be referred to as „plaintiff‟) before the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Srinagar (hereinafter to be referred to as „trial court‟). Appellant/petitioner (hereafter to be referred to as „defendant No. 1‟), and Smt. Sita Nanda-respondent No. 2 along with Jayanti Khanduri-respondent No. 3 came to be impleaded as defendants in the said suit.
3. In the plaint, it has been averred by the plaintiff that she along with the defendants are legal heirs of late Sh. J.B. Nanda. While the plaintiff, defendant Nos. 2 & 3 are the daughters, defendant No. 1 is the son of late Sh. J.B. Nanda and late Mrs. Krishna Nanda. It has been pleaded that late Sh. J.B. Nanda, predecessor-in-interest of the parties, died on 02.12.2001 and during his life time, he executed two Wills, one dated 16.10.1989 3 FAO No. 8/2024 & CR No. 9/2024 and the other dated 25.07.2001 whereby he bequeathed his ancestral as well as self-acquired properties amongst the parties to the suit.
4. It has been submitted that on 16.05.2022, the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 applied for mutation of the property measuring 3 kanals 14 marlas under survey No. 373/87 along with house constructed thereon called 'Satwant Villa' and 'Willow Cottage' situated at Sheopora, Ram Munshi Bagh, Srinagar. On 19.05.2022, Tehsildar, Srinagar attested mutation vide mutation No. 2049 in respect of the aforesaid property in equal proportions in favour of the plaintiff and the defendants.
5. An appeal came to be filed by defendants No. 1 and 2 against the aforesaid mutation order before Deputy Commissioner (Collector), Srinagar. It was contended by the aforesaid defendants that mutation of the properties should be carried out in terms of the Will dated 16.10.1989 and that mutation in respect of said property should be attested only in the name of defendant No. 1.
6. It has been pleaded that on 28.10.2022, the District Collector, Srinagar, without returning any findings on the merits of the case, remanded the case to the Tehsildar concerned for de- novo enquiry and for passing fresh orders in view of two Wills dated 16.10.1989 and 25.07.2001. It has also been pleaded 4 FAO No. 8/2024 & CR No. 9/2024 that Will dated 25.07.2001 has to be considered as the last and final testament of late Sh. J.B. Nanda, but the original of the said Will has been destroyed by the defendant No.1, who refuses to accept the existence of the said Will. It has been pleaded that the defendant No. 1 is insisting that the property, immoveable and moveable assets of late Sh. JB Nanda, should be devolve upon the parties as per the terms of Will dated 16.10.1989.
7. It has been further pleaded that in the interest of family peace, harmony and tranquility, the plaintiff is willing to partition the estate in terms of Will dated 16.10.1989 as the last and final testament of late Sh. JB Nanda, according to which, the plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share in the estate upon its partition. It has been contended in the plaint that defendant No. 1 has only been designated as 'Karta' of the Hindu Undivided Family (hereinafter to be referred to as „HUF‟) property and, as such, he is only a manager of the HUF property and not the owner of whole of the HUF property.
8. It has been further contended that in view of the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in the year 2005 and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in 'Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma & Ors‟, 2020 (9) SCC 1‟, the plaintiff, being the coparcener, has a right to seek partition of 5 FAO No. 8/2024 & CR No. 9/2024 the suit property. In the plaint, it has been further pleaded that the plaintiff has incurred expenses on construction of washroom in the suit property and she has also incurred expenses on purchase of new furniture, which was brought by her in the estate.
9. It has been also pleaded in the plaint that on 27.09.2022, the plaintiff along with her daughter were forced to leave the said house i.e., Satwant Villa by defendants No. 1 and 2, who locked the main gate and rooms. According to the plaintiff, she filed a complaint with Police Station, Ram Munshi Bagh, Srinagar. Thereafter she also filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar seeking a direction upon the SHO concerned for registration of the case. It has been pleaded that defendants No. 1 and 2 are attempting to grab the whole of the estate along with the land appurtenant thereto by misusing the office of 'Karta'.
10. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the plaintiff has sought a decree of partition of the property called 'Satwant Villa' situated at Ram Munshi Bagh, Srinagar along with the land appurtenant thereto and 'Willow Cottage'. A declaration that plaintiff is owner of 1/4th specific share of the aforesaid property along with land appurtenant thereto has also been 6 FAO No. 8/2024 & CR No. 9/2024 sought. Besides this, the plaintiff has sought a permanent injunction against the defendants, restraining them from selling, transferring, alienating or creating third party interest in the suit property.
11. It seems that defendant No. 1 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the trial court in which it was pleaded that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiff in terms of Will dated 16.10.1989, which is an undisputed document. It was also pleaded that defendant No. 1 has become owner of the suit property after the demise of testator late Sh. J.B. Nanda on 02.12.2001. It has been contended that because late Sh. J.B. Nanda died before 20.12.2004, the crucial date for giving effect to Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005 whereby Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was amended, therefore, in terms of the legal position laid down by the Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma‟s case (supra), the plaintiff never became a coparcener inasmuch as the testamentary disposition had already taken place before 20.12.2004 in accordance with the Will dated 16.10.1989 left by late Sh. J.B. Nanda. It has been submitted that not only is the suit barred by limitation but even as per the legal position laid down by the Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma‟s case (supra), a decree of partition in 7 FAO No. 8/2024 & CR No. 9/2024 respect of the suit property, which has already devolved upon defendant No. 1 in terms of the Will dated 16.10.1989, cannot be passed in favour of the plaintiff.
12. It has also been contended that in view of Section 139 of J&K Land Revenue Act, 1996, jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit for partition in respect of the subject matter of the suit is barred. It has been further contended that because plaintiff has not sought relief of possession, which is a consequential relief, as such, the suit is not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
13. It appears that defendant No. 1 has also filed his written statement before the trial court. The averments and contentions made in the written statement shall be gone into and referred to in case it is found that the contentions of defendant No. 1 regarding his prayer for rejection of the plaint are not tenable. In case, it is found that the plaint is liable to be rejected in view of the contentions raised by defendant No. 1 in his application under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of the Civil Procedure, the requirement of analyzing the averments made in the written statement filed by defendant No. 1 may not arise. Therefore, first of all, it would be appropriate to 8 FAO No. 8/2024 & CR No. 9/2024 determine as to whether the contention of defendant No. 1 that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action is tenable.
14. The learned trial court while dealing with the aforesaid contention of defendant No. 1 has, in its impugned judgment dated 15.09.2023, observed that the plaintiff has, in para-(25) of the plaint, clearly disclosed the cause of action. It has been further observed that because an issue in this regard has been framed by the court, therefore, the same shall be adjudicated upon at the appropriate stage. According to the learned trial court since the averments made in the plaint disclose cause of action as the same stands specifically mentioned in the plaint, so the ground urged by defendant No. 1 is without any merit.
15. Defendant No. 1 in his revision petition while challenging the impugned order of the trial court has contended that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate that defendant No.1 had become owner of the suit property as he was the only coparcener left behind after the demise of late Sh. J.B Nanda on 02.12.2001. It has been contended that the learned trial court has failed to take note of the fact that late Sh. J.B Nanda had died before 20.12.2004, the crucial date on which Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005, is to be given effect, none of the daughters was a coparcener and the testamentary disposition of the property left behind by predecessor-in- 9 FAO No. 8/2024 & CR No. 9/2024 interest of the parties had already taken place on 02.12.2001. It has been further contended that the plaintiff was admittedly ousted from the possession of the suit property, as such, without claiming the relief of possession, suit was not maintainable but this aspect has not been adverted to by the learned trial court. It has also been contended that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate and understand the true nature of the Will dated 16.10.1989, which is an admitted document.
16. I have heard learned Senior counsel appearing for defendant No. 1 (petitioner/appellant herein) and learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff (respondent No. 1 herein). I have also gone through the impugned order passed by the learned trial court, the grounds of challenge and the record.
17. According to defendant No. 1, the plaint does not disclose any cause of action as the averments made therein even if taken to be correct at their face value, the relief sought by the plaintiff in the suit cannot be granted in her favour.
18. It is a settled law that a plaint can be rejected in terms of Order VII Rule 11(a) of Civil Procedure Code by the court if it does not disclose cause of action. Without a cause of action a civil suit cannot be entertained. A cause of action means every 10 FAO No. 8/2024 & CR No. 9/2024 fact which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to judgment of the court. In order to ascertain whether the averments made in the plaint disclose a cause of action, a court has only to consider the averments made in the plaint and not the contentions raised in the written statement or in any other ancillary proceedings. However, when a plaintiff also relies upon document(s) annexed to the plaint or filed alongwith the plaint, having regard to provision contained in Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, those documents are required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of disposal of an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. If it is shown from the averments made in the plaint and the documents relied upon by the plaintiff, which are to be taken as true at their face value, that the plaintiff would be entitled to a decree as prayed in the suit, the plea of a defendant for rejection of the plaint has to be turned down.
19. The Supreme Court has, in the case of "Vijay Pratap Singh & Anr Vs Dukh Haran Nath Singh", AIR 1962 SC 941 while discussing the scope of enquiry which a Civil Court has to undertake while determining whether or not the plaint discloses cause of action, held as under:
11 FAO No. 8/2024 & CR No. 9/2024
"By the express terms of Rule 5 clause (d), the court is concerned the ascertain whether the allegations made in the petition show a cause of action. The court has not to see whether the claim made by the petitioner is likely to succeed:
it has merely to satisfy itself that the allegations made in the petition, if accepted as true, would entitle the petitioner to the relief he claims. If accepting those allegations as true no case is made out for granting relief no cause of action would be shown and the petition must be rejected. But in ascertaining whether the petition shows a cause of action the court does not enter upon a trial of the issues affecting the merits of the claim made by the petitioner. It cannot take into consideration the defences which the defendant may raise upon the merits; nor is the court competent to make an elaborate enquiry into doubtful or complicated questions of law or fact. If the allegations in the petition, prima facie, show a cause of action, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations are true in fact, or whether the petitioner will succeed in the claims made by him."
20. Again the Supreme Court, in the case of "Liverpool & London S.P & 1 Association Ltd Vs. M.V. Sea Success I & Anr", (2004) 9 SCC 512, explained that whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact and it must be found out from reading the plaint itself. The Supreme Court further held that for the said purpose the averments made in the plaint in their entirety must be held to be correct. The Court went on to lay down that the test is as to whether if the averments made in the plaint are taken to be correct in its entirety, a decree would be passed.
12 FAO No. 8/2024 & CR No. 9/2024
21. From the foregoing analysis of the law on the subject, it is manifest that while dealing with an application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, courts have to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by carefully scrutinizing the averments made in the plaint together with the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs. The court has to disregard the averments made in the written statement.
22. With the aforesaid legal position in mind, let us now analyze the averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint. It is case of the plaintiff that she being daughter of late Sh. JB Nanda, who had passed away in the year 2001, is entitled to 1/4th share of the property called 'Satwant Villa' and 'Willow Cottage' along with the land appurtenant thereto situated at Sheopora, Ram Munshi Bagh, Srinagar. Although in the plaint, it is pleaded that late Sh. J.B. Nanda had executed two Wills, one in the year 1989 and the other in the year 2001, yet the plaintiff has, in para (9) of the plaint, clearly stated that she is willing to have partition of the suit property in terms of Will dated 16.10.1989 by treating it as the last and final testament of late Mr. J.B. Nanda. The plaintiff is relying upon Will dated 16.10.1989 for the purpose of seeking relief of declaration and partition to the extent of 1/4th of the share in the suit property. The document 13 FAO No. 8/2024 & CR No. 9/2024 Will dated 16.10.1989, which is an admitted document is, therefore, crucial to the decision of the issue as to whether or not the plaintiff has a cause of action in her favour.
23. The contention that has been raised by defendant No. 1 is that as per the legal position prevailing prior to 20.12.2004, the date when effect to amendment of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was given by virtue of Act 39 of 2005, only the male descendants were entitled to become coparceners and thus, immediately prior to the death of late Sh. J.B. Nanda in the year 2001, only late Sh. J.B. Nanda and the defendant No. 1 were the coparceners in respect of the suit property along with other ancestral properties. After his death on 02.12.2001, defendant No. 1 became the sole coparcener and by virtue of Will dated 16.10.1989, disposition of the suit property had taken place in his favour. It has been contended by defendant No. 1 that in terms of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, as amended by Act 39 of 2005, the said disposition in favour of defendant No. 1 is saved and, therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim partition of the suit property.
24. The contention of the plaintiff, on the other hand, is that even after the death of late Sh. J.B. Nanda, the suit property continued to be a joint property of the HUF of which a defendant No. 1 and unmarried sister Smt. Sita Nanda (defendant No. 2) 14 FAO No. 8/2024 & CR No. 9/2024 were the members and, as such, it cannot be stated that defendant No. 1 in his capacity as the sole coparcener after the death of late Sh J.B Nanda had become the sole owner of the suit property. It has been contended that as per Will dated 16.10.1989 defendant No. 1 was appointed only as 'Karta' and his status was only of a Manager of the suit property, which was never disposed of by the testator in his favour.
25. Before determining the merits of the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, it would be apt to notice the legal position as regards the effect and interpretation of the amended provisions contained in Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The same reads as under :-
6. Devolution of interest in coparcenary property. --
(1)On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, in a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall,--
(a)by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son;
(b)have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son;
(c)be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenary property as that of a son, and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter of a coparcener:15 FAO No. 8/2024 & CR No. 9/2024
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before the 20th day of December, 2004.
(2)Any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitled by virtue of sub-section (1) shall be held by her with the incidents of coparcenary ownership and shall be regarded, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force in, as property capable of being disposed of by her by testamentary disposition.
(3)Where a Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, his interest in the property of a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be, under this Act and not by survivorship, and the coparcenary property shall be deemed to have been divided as if a partition had taken place and,--
(a)the daughter is allotted the same share as is allotted to a son;
(b)the share of the pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as they would have got had they been alive at the time of partition, shall be allotted to the surviving child of such pre-deceased son or of such pre-deceased daughter;
and
(c)the share of the pre-deceased child of a pre-deceased son or of a pre-deceased daughter, as such child would have got had he or she been alive at the time of the partition, shall be allotted to the child of such pre-deceased child of the pre- deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as the case may be.
Explanation. --For the purposes of this sub-section, the interest of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted 16 FAO No. 8/2024 & CR No. 9/2024 to him if a partition of the property had taken place immediately before his death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not.
(4)After the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, no court shall recognise any right to proceed against a son, grandson or great-grandson for the recovery of any debt due from his father, grandfather or great-grandfather solely on the ground of the pious obligation under the Hindu law, of such son, grandson or great- grandson to discharge any such debt:
Provided that in the case of any debt contracted before the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect--
(a)the right of any creditor to proceed against the son, grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be; or
(b)any alienation made in respect of or in satisfaction of, any such debt, and any such right or alienation shall be enforceable under the rule of pious obligation in the same manner and to the same extent as it would have been enforceable as if the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 had not been enacted.
Explanation. --For the purposes of clause (a), the expression ―son‖, ―grandson‖ or ―great-grandson‖ shall be deemed to refer to the son, grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be, who was born or adopted prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
(5)Nothing contained in this section shall apply to a partition, which has been effected before the 20th day of December, 2004.
Explanation. --For the purposes of this section ―partition‖ means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition 17 FAO No. 8/2024 & CR No. 9/2024 duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court.‖
26. From a perusal of the above provision, it is clear that upon commencement of the Act 39 of 2005, the daughter of a coparcener becomes a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son and she is vested with same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have like a son. It is significant to note that the daughter becomes a coparcener in terms of the said provision by birth meaning thereby effect of the right to become a coparcener in favour of a daughter has been bestowed upon her from the date of her birth and not from the date of coming into effect of the said amendment.
27. However, proviso to sub section (1) of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act saves any disposition or alienation including any partition or the testamentary disposition of property, which had taken place before 20.12.2004. The explanation to sub-section (5) quoted above clarifies that the partition for the purpose of said provision has to be by way of deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act or the partition effected by a decree of court meaning thereby that any other mode of partition is not recognized in terms of Section 6(5) of the Hindu Succession Act.
18 FAO No. 8/2024 & CR No. 9/2024
28. The provisions contained in Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act as amended by Act 39 of 2005 have been explained by the Supreme Court in the case of „Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and Ors‟, (2020) 9 SCC 1. The Supreme Court has, in the said case while answering the reference concerning the interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act as amended by Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, held as under :-
―129. Resultantly, we answer the reference as under:
(i) The provisions contained in substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confer status of coparcener on the daughter born before or after amendment in the same manner as son with same rights and liabilities.
(ii) The rights can be claimed by the daughter born earlier with effect from 9.9.2005 with savings as provided in Section 6(1) as to the disposition or alienation, partition or testamentary disposition which had taken place before 20th day of December, 2004.
(iii) Since the right in coparcenary is by birth, it is not necessary that father coparcener should be living as on 9.9.2005.
(iv) The statutory fiction of partition created by proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as originally enacted did not bring about the actual partition or disruption of coparcenary. The fiction was only for the purpose of ascertaining share of deceased coparcener when he was survived by a female heir, of Class-I as specified in the Schedule to the Act of 1956 or male relative of such female. The provisions of the substituted Section 6 are 19 FAO No. 8/2024 & CR No. 9/2024 required to be given full effect. Notwithstanding that a preliminary decree has been passed the daughters are to be given share in coparcenary equal to that of a son in pending proceedings for final decree or in an appeal.
(v) In view of the rigor of provisions of Explanation to Section 6(5) of the Act of 1956, a plea of oral partition cannot be accepted as the statutory recognized mode of partition effected by a deed of partition duly registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 or effected by a decree of a court. However, in exceptional cases where plea of oral partition is supported by public documents and partition is finally evinced in the same manner as if it had been affected by a decree of a court, it may be accepted. A plea of partition based on oral evidence alone cannot be accepted and to be rejected outrightly.‖
29. The ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case was explained by the said Court in its later judgment delivered in the case of „Prasanta Kumar Sahoo and Ors Vs. Charulata Sahu and Ors‟, (2023) 9 SCC 641. While discussing the legal position as laid down in Vineeta Sharma‟s case (supra), the Supreme Court took notice of paras 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the judgment in the case titled „Ganduri Koteshwaramma & Anr Vs. Chakiri Yanadi & Anr‟, (2011) 9 SCC 788. The same are reproduced as under:
―11. The new Section 6 provides for parity of rights in the coparcenary property among male and female members of a joint Hindu family on and from 9-9-2005. The legislature has now conferred substantive right in favour of the daughters. According to the new Section 6, the daughter of a coparcener 20 FAO No. 8/2024 & CR No. 9/2024 becomes a coparcener by birth in her own rights and liabilities in the same manner as the son. The declaration in Section 6 that the daughter of the coparcener shall have same rights and liabilities in the coparcenary property as she would have been a son is unambiguous and unequivocal. Thus, on and from 9-9-2005, the daughter is entitled to a share in the ancestral property and is a coparcener as if she had been a son.
12. The right accrued to a daughter in the property of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, by virtue of the 2005 Amendment Act, is absolute, except in the circumstances provided in the proviso appended to sub-
section (1) of Section 6. The excepted categories to which new Section 6 of the 1956 Act is not applicable are two, namely, (i) where the disposition or alienation including any partition has taken place before 20-12-2004; and (ii) where testamentary disposition of property has been made before 20-12-2004. Sub-section (5) of Section 6 leaves no room for doubt as it provides that this section shall not apply to the partition which has been effected before 20-12-2004. For the purposes of new Section 6 it is explained that ―partition‖ means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 or partition effected by a decree of a court. In light of a clear provision contained in the Explanation appended to sub-section (5) of Section 6, for determining the non-applicability of the section, what is relevant is to find out whether the partition has been effected before 20-12-2004 by deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 or by a decree of a court. In the backdrop of the above legal position with reference to Section 6 brought in the 1956 Act by the 2005 Amendment Act, the question that we have to answer is as to whether the preliminary decree passed by the trial court on 19-3-1999 and amended on 27-9-2003 deprives the 21 FAO No. 8/2024 & CR No. 9/2024 appellants of the benefits of the 2005 Amendment Act although final decree for partition has not yet been passed.
13. The legal position is settled that partition of a joint Hindu family can be effected by various modes, inter alia, two of these modes are (one) by a registered instrument of a partition and (two) by a decree of the court. In the present case, admittedly, the partition has not been effected before 20- 12-2004 either by a registered instrument of partition or by a decree of the court. The only stage that has reached in the suit for partition filed by Respondent 1 is the determination of shares vide preliminary decree dated 19-3- 1999 which came to be amended on 27-9-2003 and the receipt of the report of the Commissioner.
14. A preliminary decree determines the rights and interests of the parties. The suit for partition is not disposed of by passing of the preliminary decree. It is by a final decree that the immovable property of joint Hindu family is partitioned by metes and bounds. After the passing of the preliminary decree, the suit continues until the final decree is passed. If in the interregnum i.e. after passing of the preliminary decree and before the final decree is passed, the events and supervening circumstances occur necessitating change in shares, there is no impediment for the court to amend the preliminary decree or pass another preliminary decree redetermining the rights and interests of the parties having regard to the changed situation.‖
30. After noticing the aforesaid legal position, the Supreme court in Prasanta Kumar Sahoo‟s case (supra), observed as under:
60. Thus, in Ganduri Koteshwaramma (supra) this Court made the following things explicitly clear:22 FAO No. 8/2024 & CR No. 9/2024
(60.1) The equal share given to the daughter of a coparcener governed by Hindu Mitakshara Law along with brothers is by way of a substantive right;
(60.2) Though the substantive right is created on and from 9- 9-2005, it relates back to the incidence of birth;
(60.3) The substantive right would not be available only if the coparcenary property is disposed of or alienated including by any partition or testamentary disposition of property before 20-12-2004 and;
(60.4) If there is disposition of a coparcenary property by any partition, such partition must be by execution of a Deed of Partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 or effected by a decree of the Court.
(60.5) A preliminary decree of partition only determines the rights and interests of the parties. It is only by a final decree that the immovable property of joint Hindu family is partitioned by metes and bounds. After the passing of the preliminary decree, the suit continues until the final decree is passed. If in the interregnum i.e. after passing of the preliminary decree and before the final decree is passed, if there is any change in law necessitating determination of shares accordingly then, there would be no impediment for the Court to amend the preliminary decree or pass another preliminary decree redetermining the rights and interests of the parties having regard to the changed situation.
31. From the analysis of foregoing legal position, it is clear that if a testamentary disposition or partition or any alienation of coparcenary property has taken place prior to 20.12.2004, the same is saved and a daughter, who has become coparcener by 23 FAO No. 8/2024 & CR No. 9/2024 virtue of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005 cannot claim partition of property already disposed of, partitioned or bequeathed by testamentary disposition prior to 20.12.2004.
32. Now coming to the facts of the present case, defendant No. 1 claims that in terms of Will dated 16.10.1989, the suit property had been bequeathed by late Sh. J.B. Nanda in his favour and because Sh. J.B. Nanda had died in the year 2001 prior to coming into effect of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, therefore, the disposition made by him with regard to the said property in favour of defendant No. 1 is saved and, thus, the same cannot be subjected to partition. The case of the plaintiff is that though there is no doubt about the authenticity of Will dated 16.10.1989, yet by virtue of the said Will, defendant No. 1 was only made 'Karta' of ancestral property but the suit property was never bequeathed in his favour.
33. In order to test the merits of the rival contentions, it would be apt to notice the contents of Will dated 16.10.1989 executed by late Sh. J.B. Nanda. The same are reproduced as under:
"WILL IN FAVOUR OF WIFE AND CHILDREN I, J. B. Nanda r/o Shri J. D. Nanda, Chief Engineer, J&K State (Retd.) R/o Satwant village, Ram Munshi Bagh, Srinagar (Kashmir), do hereby revoke all my previous wills and codicils, if any, and declare this will made at Srinagar, Kashmir, on this 16 th Day of October, 1989, to be my last will.24 FAO No. 8/2024 & CR No. 9/2024
I have during my lifetime owned the following immovable properties and assets, party as Karta of Hindu undivided family and partly with my own efforts, and without association of any ancestral Estate, required considerable property and I am also possessed of large assets in the shape of bonds and I am also possessed of large assets in the shape of bonds. Saving Funds Accounts, fixed deposits in Banks, Saving Certificates, Units of unit trust of India etc. AS KARTA OF HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY (A) Main five bed room house known as ―Satwant Villa‖, and a separate single storeyed garage and store-block, fully furnished with besides other things, four sofa sets, thirteen large carpets, show case in the dinning room with exquisite bone china crockery, glass crockery, glass were, silver ware, parti, kept away and partly in use, very superior quality of English dinner and tea set complete etc. And all kinds of household effects. The land appurtenant to the said bungalow, and the annex which will form item (5) below is about four Kanals Two Kanals and thirteen marlas of common road with my brothers and sister. (B) Two storeyed annexed called ―willow cottage‖ with an independent entrance.
(C) Seven years National Rural Development Bonds for Rs. 160000/-
No. DH. 2678 dated 24th November, 1982, due to maturity on 24.11.1989.
(D) Current Account SBI Srinagar No. P-2, 11040, in the name of DB Nanda, Karta Hindu Undivided Family.
(E) Fixed deposit of Rs. 20000 in the State Bank of India Srinagar in the name of JB Nanda, Karta Hindu Undivided Family, due to maturity on 07.06.1991. The quarterly interest is credit to the current account mentioned in item ―D‖ above. AS INDIVIDUAL
(a) Three Kanal and four marlas of land Laripora Pahalgam, as detailed below:-
Khewat No. 20 Khasra No. 442-1 Kanal 19 marlas.
Khewat No. 12 (Khasra No. 443) - Kanal 26 marlas Total - 3 kanals and 4 marlas.
(b) 3 years IDBI Capital Bond for an amount of Rs. 550000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) to CB(H) - JM/00003 dated 9.6.1989 along with seven post dated six monthly cheques for Rs.
24750/-
25 FAO No. 8/2024 & CR No. 9/2024
(c) SAVING FUND ACCOUNTS
(i) S.F. Account No: 10273 in State Bank of India, Srinagar;
(ii) S.F. Account No. 2118/L 9 in J&K Bank Residency Road, Srinagar;
(iii) S.F. Account No: C-773 State Bank of India, Badami Bagh, Cantt., Srinagar (Joint Account with my wife Krishna Nanda).
(iv) S.F. Account No. 11377 Grind lays Bank Srinagar (Joint Account with my wife Krishna Nanda it is primarily my wife's Account)
(v) S.F. Account No. 6504 J&K Bank, Sondhi Nagar, Jammu (Tawi).
(vi) S.F. Account No. 2297 in Punjab National Bank, Nizam-ud-din Branch, New Delhi (Joint Account with my wife Krishna Nanda. It is primarily my wife's Account)
(vii) S.F. Account No. 3412 in Punjab National Bank, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi.
(D) FIXED DEPOSITS IN BANKS
(i) Fixed Deposit of Rs. 30,000/- in State Bank of India, Badami Bagh Cantt., Srinagar, vide Term Deposit Receipt No. 509374 in the names of J.S. Nanda and my son Shri Rajiv Krishna Nanda due for maturity on 2.7.1990.
(ii) Fixed deposit of Rs. 18,000/- in State Bank of India, Badami Bagh Cantt., Srinagar vide Term Deposit receipt No. 455537 in the names of J.B. Nanda and Krishna Nanda due for maturity on 1.4.1990. The quarterly interest on this deposit is credited to my S.F. Account No. C-773 mentioned in item C(iii) above.
(iii) Fixed deposit of Rs. 5,000/- in J&K Bank, Gandh Nagar, Jammu, vide Deposit receipt No. 058886 is due for maturity on 19.3.1991. I hope to increase this amount during my lifetime. The quarterly interest on this deposit is credited to my S.F. Account No. 6504, J&K Bank, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, mentioned in item No. c(iv) above.
(E) SIX YEAR NATIONAL SAVINGS CERTIFICATES - SEVENTH ISSUE HELD IN SUB POST OFFICE, BATWARA SRINAGAR:
(i) For Rs. 5,000/- (No. 592091) dated 13.11.1984, due for maturity on 13.11.1990;
(ii) for Rs. 1,000/- (No. 116046) dated 13.11.1984, due for maturity on 13.11.1990;
(iii) for Rs. 1,000/- (No. 116047) dated 13.11.1984, due for maturity on 13.11.1990; and 26 FAO No. 8/2024 & CR No. 9/2024
(iv) Twelve certificates of Rs. 500/- each (Nos. 112055 to 112066) dated 27.3.1989, due for maturity on 27.3.1995.
(F) UNIT TRUST OF INDIA I hold one thousand units of the Unit Trust of India in the joint names of J.B. Nanda and Krishna Nanda, Satwant Villa, Ram Munshi Bagh, Srinagar. Any one or Survivor, bearing No. 48311, 301671 dated 20.07.1982.
WHEREAS, my family i.e. my wife and children comprise of following members:
(i) Krishna Nanda - Wife
(ii) Parveena Hoon
Wife of Major General H.N. Hoon - Daughter
(iii) Sita Nanda - Daughter (Unmarried)
(iv) Jayant Khanduri
Wife of Major General Rajiv Khanduri - Daughter) Rajiv Krishan Nanda - Son THAT WHEREAS, without any pressure, coercion or intimidation I bequeath, by my this will, the aforesaid immovable and movable property, in favour of my wife and children mentioned hereinabove, as under:-
My only son, namely, Shri Rajiv Krishan Nanda will be the Karta of my Hindu Undivided Family assets, of which I am the Karta at present.
I further bequeath that in this respect:-
(a) That on maturity of seven years National Rural Development Bonds for Rs. 1,60,000/- on 24th of November, 1989 - item (A)-(C) above, Rs. 1,00,000/- should be put in Fixed Deposit to be credited into Current Account No. P/211040. From this amount, Rs. 700/- per month should be paid to my wife Krishna Nanda for her lifetime.
(b) The Willow Cottage, item B, excluding the two servants' rooms in the ground floor which have access from the main house, should be given to my daughter Sita Nanda who is a member of Hindu Undivided Family, for her personal independent residence only (not renting) if she is posted in Srinagar or after her retirement wishes to live in Srinagar, for her lifetime.
(2) I bequeath my own, earned and possessed immovable and movable property (as individual) as under:27 FAO No. 8/2024 & CR No. 9/2024
(a) My 3 Kanal and 4 Marlas of land at Pahalgam, combined with 1 Kanal and 5 Marlas of land belonging to my wife and contiguous to my land, which she has decided to have to her daughters, should be distributed among my three daughters approximately equal share of one Kanal and Eight Marlas to each with five marlas of my wife's land in Khasra No. 444/min and 445/min set side for an independent road to the plots of my daughters Sita Nanda and Jayanti Khanduri at the western of the plot, as follows:-
One Kanal and Fourteen Marlas of land in Khewat No. 20, Khasra No. 442, and One Kanal Two Marlas of land in Khewat No. 12, Khasra No. 443, total Two Kanals and Sixteen Marlas of land on the Northern side of our plot, should go to my daughters Sita Nanda and Jayanti Khanduri, approachable by five marlas of independent road from the public road on the southern side of our plot. They will divide this plot of Two Kanals and Sixteen Marlas mortally in a manner acceptable to both. In case of discrete over it between the two, which is unlikely, my younger brother Lt. General T.B. Nanda, will be the sole Arbitrator to decide the dispute between the two, and decision given by the said Arbitrator shall be full and final, and finding on the parties. The remaining One Kanal and Eight Marlas of land as follows:-Four Marlas from Khasra No. 443 Four Marlas from Khasra No. 444
And One Kanal from Khasra Nos. 444 and 445 belonging to my wife, forming a plot of One kanal and Eight Marlas of land located alongwith the public road on the Southern side, will go to my eldest daughter, Mrs. Parveena Hoon. I hope to get these plots properly demarcated during my lifetime.
(b) THREE YEARS IDBI CAPITAL BOND FOR RS. 5,55,000/-
The proceeds of this bond on maturity and the post dated six monthly cheques, if any uncahsed upto the time of my death, should go to my wife Krishna Nanda. In case of my wife's and my simultaneous death or my wife's death preceding mine. Rs. Seventy Five Thousand each should go to my three daughters and Rs. Three Lakhs and twenty Five Thousands should go to my son Rajiv Krishna Nanda. (C) SAVING FUNDS ACCOUNTS My three Joint Saving Fund Accounts with my wife viz. S.F. Account No. C-773 State Bank of India, Badami Bagh Cantt., Srinagar, S.F. Account No. 11377, Grindlaya Bank Srinagar, and 28 FAO No. 8/2024 & CR No. 9/2024 S.F. Account No. 2297 Punjab National Bank, Nizam-ud-din, New Delhi, will revert to my wife. The proceeds of the remaining four accounts should be collected and should be distributed equally amongst my three daughters and one son.
(d) FIXED DEPOSITS IN BANKS:
(I) Fixed deposit of Rs. 30,000/- in State Bank of India, Badami Bagh Cantt., Srinagar, in my name and the name of my son Rajiv Krishna Nanda, will revert to my son. (II) Fixed deposit of Rs. 18,000/- in State Bank of India, Badami Bagh Cantt., Srinagar, in my name and the name of my wife Krishna Nanda, will revert to my wife. In case of my wife's and my simultaneous death, or my wife's death preceding mine, this should go to my son.
(III) Fixed deposit of Rs. 5,000/- in J&K Bank, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, should go to my son Rajiv Krishna Nanda.
(e) SIX YEARS NATIONAL SAVING CERTIFICATES, SEVENTH ISSUE, HELD IN SUB POST OFFICE, BATWARA, SRINAGAR Should go to my son Rajiv Krishna Nanda.
(f) One thousand units in the Unit Trust of India, held jointly with my wife, will revert to her. In case of my and my wife's simultaneous death, or my wife's death preceding mine, these units should be divided equally among my daughter Sita Nanda and my granddaughter Mallika, daughter of my daughter Jayanti Khanduri.
I further bequeath that:-
(i) My B.S.A. gun and fishing tackle should go to my son Rajiv Krishna Nanda along with accessories which go with these and cartridges, if any.
(ii) My Movie Camera, Projector, Screen and all note reels should go to my daughter, Sita Nanda.
(iii) Besides, whatever I have desired to be given to my daughters under this will after my demised. I have already given them the share to which they would be entitled under Hindu Law after my death, in the form of movable properties, jewellery, presents and in the form heirlooms and as such, they have no further claim in my any movable or immovable property except the one bequeathed in the will.
However, in case of any legal obstacle in inheriting the immovable property to my daughters, the same should devolve on my son and he shall pay in cash, the prevalent market value of the property to his sisters.
29 FAO No. 8/2024 & CR No. 9/2024Any servant who has been with us for more than five years continuously at the time of my death, should be given Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand) from Hindu Undivided Family funds. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set and subscribed my hand and signature this 15th of October 1989, at Srinagar.
Sd/-
Testator (JB Nanda) WITNESS Signed by the within named testator as his last will and statement in our presence, all being present at the same time. Thereafter at his request and his presence and in the presence of another we subscribed our respective names.
1. Sd/-
Chief Secretary Srinagar.
2. Sd/-
(Dr. SR Dhar) Professor of Medicines Rajbagh, Srinagar.‖
34. From a perusal of the aforequoted Will, it appears that the testator had, in his possession, two types of properties one, belonging to Hindu Undivided Family i.e. ancestral property and the self-acquired property. So far as disposition of self- acquired property of late Sh. J.B. Nanda is concerned, the same is mentioned in clause 2 (a) to (f) of the Will.
35. Regarding ancestral properties belonging to the HUF, the testator late Sh. J.P. Nanda has made disposition with regard to National Rural Development Bonds by providing that the same shall be put in fixed deposit and be credited to current account as mentioned in the list of HUF assets. It has been further provided that Willow Cottage, which is a part of the 30 FAO No. 8/2024 & CR No. 9/2024 ancestral estate, would be given to daughter Smt. Sita Nanda for her life time. There is no mention about the fate of suit property i.e. Satwant Villa, which has been specifically mentioned as part of the property of the HUF at Clause (A) of the Will. The only thing that has been mentioned is that defendant No. 1 shall be 'Karta' in respect of HUF assets.
36. At first blush, it appears that the testator has not made any disposition with regard to the suit property but when we carefully analyze the entire contents of the Will particularly its concluding portion, it comes to the fore that the testator has specifically mentioned that he has already given his daughters the share to which they would be entitled under Hindu Law after his death in the form of moveable properties, Jewellery, presents, and in the form of heirlooms and as such, they have no further claim in his moveable or immoveable property except the ones bequeathed in the Will. Thus, the testator has made his intention clear that whatever he had to give to his daughters, he has already given to them by virtue of the Will in question and besides this he has also given them immoveable properties in the form of jewellery, presents and heirlooms. The testator has made it clear that the daughters will not have any claim over any other moveable or immoveable property left 31 FAO No. 8/2024 & CR No. 9/2024 behind him. This inference is supported by other surrounding circumstances which are deducible from the contents of the Will. The same are being noticed hereinafter.
37. The intention of the testator that he wanted to ensure that his daughters should get proper share in the assets can be inferred from the fact that he has provided in the Will that in case any of the immoveable property, which he has given to his daughters by virtue of the said Will, would not get devolved upon his daughters because of legal obstacles, the same would devolve upon his son who will have to pay the market value thereof to his sisters. This, it appears, was done by the testator keeping in view the legal position in force at the relevant time according to which a daughter marrying a non- state subject was not eligible to retain immoveable property in erstwhile State of J&K. By making this provision in the Will, the testator has ensured that his daughters are not deprived of their shares in the property under any circumstances.
38. From the above, it is clear that the testator has, by virtue of the Will, given properties, moveable and immoveable, to all his daughters and has also given life interest in respect of Willow Cottage to his unmarried daughter Smt. Sita Nanda but he has not specifically earmarked any property in favour of his son Rajiv Nanda. When this background situation is read in 32 FAO No. 8/2024 & CR No. 9/2024 conjunction with the concluding part of the Will whereby the testator has stated that his daughters will not have any right in any other movable or immoveable property, one comes to the irresistible conclusion that the testator intended to bequeath the suit property in favour of his son-(defendant) No.1 although he has not specifically stated so in the Will.
39. Section 88 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 provides that where two clauses or gifts in a Will are irreconcilable so that they cannot possibly stand together, the last shall prevail. In the present case, at the initial stage of the Will, the testator late Sh. J.B. Nanda has appointed his son-defendnant No. 1 as a 'Karta' of the HUF assets but towards the conclusion of the Will, he has made it clear that except the disposition made by him by virtue of the said Will in favour of his daughters, they will not get any other share in the moveable or immoveable property left behind by the testator. Thus, the last clause of the Will has to prevail meaning thereby it has to be inferred that the testator intended that all other properties left behind by the testator, which will include the suit property, have to go to defendant No. 1 who happens to be son of late Sh. J.B. Nanda.
40. It is a settled law that while constructing a document of Will, a Court has to place itself in the arm chair of the testator and it 33 FAO No. 8/2024 & CR No. 9/2024 should be an endeavour of the court to give effect to the intention of the testator. Therefore, a Will has to be read in its entirety in the background facts and circumstances of the case. When the contents of the Will dated 16.10.1989 are considered in the background of the facts that the testator had given shares to all his three daughters out of the property left behind by him without specifically making any provision in respect of his son (defendant No. 1) coupled with the specific declaration in the Will that the daughters would not get anything except what has been given to them in the Will, it can safely be construed that the testator late Sh. J.B. Nanda intended to bequeath the suit property in favour of defendant No. 1. This fact gets further strengthened from the circumstance that none of the other sisters of defendant No. 1 has questioned this position excepting the plaintiff who has woken up from deep slumber after more than twenty years of death of the testator and filed the suit, which is subject matter of the present proceedings. This clearly shows that the parties to the suit had accepted the position that the testator intended to bequeath the suit property in favour of his son-defendant No. 1.
41. From the averments made in the plaint when read in conjunction with the admitted document i.e. the Will dated 34 FAO No. 8/2024 & CR No. 9/2024 16.10.1989, it becomes clear that the suit property was disposed of by virtue of Will dated 16.10.1989 by late Sh. J.B. Nanda in favour of the defendant No.1. The said disposition had taken effect in the year 2001, upon death of the testator, well before the crucial date i.e., 20.12.2004. Therefore, the disposition is saved by proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. Once it is shown that subject matter of the suit had already vanished inasmuch as it had been disposed of by the testator in favour of the defendant No. 1, by virtue of Will dated 16.10.1989 who had become absolute owner of the suit property, the plaintiff has no cause to seek partition of the suit property. Thus, the plaint does not disclose cause of action in her favour. The same is, accordingly, liable to be rejected.
42. The learned trial court while considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has not gone into the aforesaid aspects of the case. It has simply rejected the application of defendant No. 1 on the ground that plaintiff has pleaded in the plaint that she has a cause of action in her favour. While arriving at said conclusion, the trial court has not analyzed the averments made in the plaint and has not tried to construe the covenants of the Will in question, which is an admitted document.
35 FAO No. 8/2024 & CR No. 9/2024
43. A court is expected to apply its mind to the averments made in the plaint and the documents annexed thereto while considering as to whether or not the plaint discloses any cause of action. The Court has not to act mechanically and rely upon a routine averment that plaintiff has cause of action in her favour, without actually analyzing the plaint and the documents annexed thereto so as to ascertain whether the said assertion of the plaintiff is borne out from the averments made in the plaint.
44. It is high time that civil courts make proper use of provisions contained in Order VII Rule 11 to weed out frivolous suits so that due attention is devoted to civil suits raising triable issues. It has been observed that civil courts are generally reluctant to effectively use the provisions contained under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and this has resulted in clogging of courts with frivolous suits. It is a settled law that a party should not be unnecessarily harassed in a suit.
45. The Supreme Court in the case of Liverpool & London S.P. & I Association Ltd (supra) while relying upon the ratio laid in Azhar Hussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi, 1986 (Supp) SCC 315 has explained the object of the provisions contained in Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the following manner: 36 FAO No. 8/2024 & CR No. 9/2024
―The idea underlying Order 7 Rule 11(a) is that when no cause of action is disclosed, the courts will not unnecessarily protract the hearing of a suit. Having regard to the changes in the legislative policy as adumbrated by the amendments carried out in the Code of Civil Procedure, the Courts would interpret the provisions in such a manner so as to save expenses, achieve expedition, avoid the court's resources being used up on cases which will serve no useful purpose. A litigation which in the opinion of the court is doomed to fail would not further be allowed to be used as a device to harass a litigant.‖
46. From the foregoing analysis of legal position, it is clear that the provisions contained in Order VII Rule 11 are mandatory in nature and the same have to be resorted to by the courts to reject vexatious plaints to avoid wastage of judicial time.
47. Learned trial court in the instant case has unfortunately failed to apply its mind to the averments made in the plaint and the documents annexed thereto as a result of which it has failed to properly exercise the jurisdiction vested with it under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The impugned order passed by the learned trial court is, therefore, liable to be set aside.
48. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is set aside. Consequently, the application of defendant No. 1 for rejection 37 FAO No. 8/2024 & CR No. 9/2024 of the plaint is allowed and the plaint filed by the plaintiff is rejected. As a consequence of rejection of the plaint, the impugned order dated 15.09.2023 whereby interim injunction has been granted by the learned trial court in favour of the plaintiff shall also stand set aside and the appeal against the said order shall stand allowed.
49. Disposed of.
(SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE SRINAGAR 22.08.2025 Naresh/Secy.
Whether order is speaking: Yes Whether order is reportable: Yes ...
Naresh Kumar 2025.08.25 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document