1989 PLP 1331 (SCMR)
ZAITOON BEGUM and others Petitioners Versus Agha QASIM ALI and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1331 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan,, JJ |
| Parties | ZAITOON BEGUM and others Petitioners Versus Agha QASIM ALI and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1331 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1331 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan,, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1331 (SCMR) (ZAITOON BEGUM and others Petitioners Versus Agha QASIM ALI and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Naazar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasimi Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 27th August, 1988.
- M. Ahmad Hasan Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petltioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order dated 1‑6‑1988 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in C.R. 717/1) of 1982). ‑‑‑S.144‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Title by adverse possession‑‑Plaintiffs predecessor‑in‑interest sold house to defendant's predecessor‑in‑interest in 1933‑‑Vendor (predecessor‑in‑interest) in his lifetime and after his death, his widow were allowed to remain in possession thereof. as tenants‑‑In 1953, present defendants obtained order of ejectment against the widow but did not execute the same‑‑In 1958 widow had filed a suit for declara tion m respect of that house but same was dismissed for non‑prosecution‑‑Sub sequently defendants' suit for possession was disposed of as having abated on his failure to implead legal representatives of one of deceased defendants‑‑Defen dants' contention that predecessor‑in‑interest of plaintiffs became tenant under the vendee and their status as such was reaffirmed when order of ejectment was passed against the widow of vendor and as such they could not take up plea of adverse possession‑‑Defendants' plea needed examination‑‑Leave granted. M. Ahmad Hasan Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petltioners.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The property in dispute is a house which belonged to Jeewan Khan, predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents. In 1933 Jeewan Khan sold the house to Latafat Ali Shah, predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners. However, Jeewan Khan and after his death his widow Mst. Anwar Begum were allowed to remain in possession thereof as tenants. In 1953 the petitioners obtained an order of ejectment against Mst. Anwar Begum but did not execute the order. In 1958 Mst. Anwar Begum filed a suit for a declaration that the petitioners had no right in the land in dispute but it was dismissed for non prosecution Subsequently, the petitioners filed a suit for possession but it was disposed of as having abated on account of their failure to implead the legal representatives of one of the deceased defendants.
2. The petition arises out of the suit filed by the respondents on 18‑5‑82 for a declaration that as they had been in adverse possession since the sale in favour of Latafat Ali Shah in 1933 they had become owners of the house in dispute. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court but in appeal it was decreed by the Additional District Judge, Lahore. The petitioners' revision petition in the High Court failed. They now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
3. In support of this petition it is contended that the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents became tenant under Latafat Ali Shah and their status as such A was reaffirmed in 1954 when the order of ejectment was passed against Mst. Anwar Begum. It was, therefore, not open to them to take up the plea of adverse possession.
4. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs. 5,
000. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with direction to the parties to file additional documents. A.A.Z.‑63/S Leave granted.