1991 PLP 1986 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SALEEM and others — Petitioners Versus GHULAN KHAN and others — Respondents'
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1986 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SALEEM and others — Petitioners Versus GHULAN KHAN and others — Respondents' |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1986 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1986 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1986 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SALEEM and others — Petitioners Versus GHULAN KHAN and others — Respondents'). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Basharatullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehta K.N. Kohli, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 2nd June, 1991.
- Basharatullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehta K.N. Kohli, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order dated 4-4-1990 of the High Court of Balochistan, in Civil Revision No.23 of 1990).
S.42
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Suit for declaration and perpetual injunction relating to land in question
Plaintiffs' suit was decreed by trial Court but dismissed by Appellate Court and the High Court
High Court, while dismissing plaintiffs' revision, found that evidence led by them was insufficient; witnesses could not identify the property in question and evidence produced did not inspire confidence
Plaintiffs had failed to point out any misreading of evidence by the High Court
Plaintiffs' claim about purchase of land was not established
One of the alleged vendors having appeared in Court had not supported plaintiffs' claim of purchase; others did not appear in support of plaintiffs' claim
Plaintiffs having failed to establish their title, judgment of High Court was not open to any exception
Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the High Court, dated 4‑4‑1990.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioners filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit land. The suit was contested by the respondents and it was averred that the suit land was Shamlat and was divisible amongst 110 shares. It was not denied that any of the defendants had sold out the suit land to petitioners' predecessor. The suit was decreed by the trial Court in favour of the petitioners on 29‑9‑1988. The defendants did not challenge the decree. However, the other defendants filed an appeal which was accepted by the Majlis‑i‑Shoora on 17‑2‑1990. The High Court maintained the appellate judgment of Majlis‑i‑Shoora. The reasons which prevailed with the High Court in dismissing the revision petition of the petitioners are that the evidence led by the petitioners was insufficient; the witnesses could not identify the suit property and their evidence does not inspire confidence.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any mis reading of evidence. The evidence on record proves that the suit land was settled. The petitioner's case is that the suit land is situated within Khasra No.118. They have failed to substantiate their claim. Their claim about the purchase of the land is not established. It was vague. According to the petitioners, they had purchased the suit land from Haji Khanak and others. Haji Khanak has appeared as witness but he has not stated that he alongwith Wazir and others were owners of the suit land and that the petitioners had purchased it from them. The other vendors have not appeared to support the claim of the petitioners about the sale of the suit land. As the petitioners have failed to establish their title, the judgment of the two higher Courts is not open to any exception.
4. The petition has no force. The same is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. AA./M‑1521/5 Leave refused.