2015 PLP 909 (SCMR)
The PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector, Sialkot — Appellant Versus FEROZ DIN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2015 PLP 909 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja, Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry and Maqbool Baqar, JJ |
| Parties | The PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector, Sialkot — Appellant Versus FEROZ DIN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Limitation Act (IX of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2015 PLP 909 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Limitation Act (IX of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2015 PLP 909 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja, Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry and Maqbool Baqar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2015 PLP 909 (SCMR) (The PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector, Sialkot — Appellant Versus FEROZ DIN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mudassir Khalid Abbasi, A.A.-G. Punjab for Appellant (in all cases).
- Ex parte for Respondents (in C.As. 710 and 711 of 2005).
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmed Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos.3, 5 and 7 (in C.A. No. 712 of 2005).
- Date of hearing: 11th March, 2015.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against judgment dated 27-10-2000 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Civil Revisions Nos.1157 and 1217 of 1986)
S. 28 [since omitted]
Original owners of land not impleaded in the suit
Effect
Plea of plaintiffs that (original) owner of land died in the year 1951 and his widow left Pakistan in the year 1965, whereafter the plaintiffs became owners of said land through adverse possession
Plaintiffs were obliged to implead the original owners of the land as defendants in the suit
Without the original owners being impleaded as defendants in the suit, no possible decree for declaration of title could be passed in favour of the plaintiffs
Real parties who could have objected to plaintiffs' claim of title had not been made parties
Decree in favour of the plaintiffs was, therefore, void because only the Collector had been impleaded as a defendant
Appeal was, therefore, allowed and suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. Kh. Ahmed Hassan, D.A.-G. for the Federation.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
We have heard the learned Law Officer of the Province and learned counsel for the respondents at length. We have also gone through the record.
2. According to the respondents/plaintiffs they became owners through adverse possession and prescription. In the plaint, it has been averred that one Durga Das and his wife Mst. Raj Rani were owners/occupants of the land but Durga Das died in the year 1951 and his wife Mst. Raj Rani left Pakistan for India in 1965. This is also what has been observed by the High Court in the impugned judgment dated 27-10-2000.
3. In the suit, following 5 issues were framed:- "(1) Whether the suit is incompetent in its present form? OPD (2) Whether the court lacks jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD (3) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of party? OPD (4) Whether the plaintiff has acquired ownership of the property by adverse possession? OPD (5) Relief".
4. We are clear that once the above averments had been made in the plaint, the plaintiffs were obliged to implead Durga Das and Mst. Raj Rani as defendants in the suit. Without them being impleaded as defendants, no possible decree for declaration of title can be passed in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that if adverse possession had matured into prescriptive title, there was no need for impleading anyone else including the aforesaid Durga Das and Mst. Raj Rani. Secondly, he argued that the cause of action accrued to the respondents/plaintiffs when the appellant Province issued a notice to the respondents to vacate the premises on 16-4-1980.
5. There can be no doubt that the respondents/plaintiffs could not have been granted a declatory decree for title because the real parties who could have objected to their claim of title had not been made parties. The decrees in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs are, therefore, void on this score alone because only the Collector, Sialkot has been impleaded as a defendant.
6. We have also noted that if indeed Mst. Raj Rani had stayed in Pakistan after partition and then later migrated to India in 1965, possibly under the Defense of Pakistan Rules, the Federation would have become vested with title because persons migrated to India were declared as enemy aliens and their property was to vest in the Federation. However, it is not necessary for us to embark upon adjudication as to whether the Province or the Federation are owners of the property. What is clear is that respondents/plaintiffs cannot be declared owners in the circumstances. This appeal is, therefore, allowed and the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. MWA/P-3/SC Appeal allowed.