1980 PLP 343 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus Mst. SHARFAN AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1980 PLP 343 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | -- Art. 185 (3)-Appeal to Supreme Court-Contention that oral evidence adduced by petitioner should have been relied upon parti cularly when old entries in revenue records could not be changed except in due course of law--Neither oral evidence relied upon by petitioner helping him nor revenue record establishing petitioner's claim-No justification, hell. made out for interference with concur rent findings of Courts below--Evidence |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus Mst. SHARFAN AND OTHERS-Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1980 PLP 343 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1980 PLP 343 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the -- Art. 185 (3)-Appeal to Supreme Court-Contention that oral evidence adduced by petitioner should have been relied upon parti cularly when old entries in revenue records could not be changed except in due course of law--Neither oral evidence relied upon by petitioner helping him nor revenue record establishing petitioner's claim-No justification, hell. made out for interference with concur rent findings of Courts below--Evidence bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1980 PLP 343 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus Mst. SHARFAN AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Kh. Mohammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court, and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in both the Petitions).
- Nemo for Respondents (in both the Petitions).
- Date of hearing : 29th October, 1979.
- Kh. Mohammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court, and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in both the Petitions).
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgments and decrees dated 4th October, 1978 in R. S. As. Nos. 97 and 98 of 1962). Constitution of Pakistan (1973) -- Art. 185 (3)-Appeal to Supreme Court-Contention that oral evidence adduced by petitioner should have been relied upon parti cularly when old entries in revenue records could not be changed except in due course of law--Neither oral evidence relied upon by petitioner helping him nor revenue record establishing petitioner's claim-No justification, hell. made out for interference with concur rent findings of Courts below--[Evidence]
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑These two petitions, arising out of judgment/s and decree/s dated 4th October, 1978 dismissing plaintiff's 2nd appeals, raise same question of law and facts. They are, therefore, being disposed of together. The petitioner (plaintiff)‑had filed two suits to seek declaration that he had rights of a Mustaqil Doom (interpreted by the learned counsel as a peculiar type of occupancy tenant under section 6 of Tenancy Act (No. XVI of 1887) on the suit land. The defendants (respondents) had denied this claim with similar assertion in their own favour. The learned trial Court decreed the suits. The respondents' Ist appeals were allowed' and the suits were dismissed. In the High Court although a question was also raised regarding the meaning of the expression Mustaqil Doam, yet the main controversy regarding the declaration sought by the petitioner was decided with reference to the factual aspects of the case, emphasis having been laid on the entries in the revenue records. Learned counsel has contended that the oral evidence adduced by the petitioner should have been relied upon, particularly when the old entries in the revenue records existing in the year 1940 and prior thereto could not be changed except in due course of law. We have read the oral evidence relied upon from the petitioner's side. It does not help him. The revenue record as rightly held by the two learned lower appellate Courts, also does not establish petitioner's claim. No justification has been made out for interference with their findings. These petitions have no force and are accordingly dismissed. Petitions dismissed.