P L D 1964 W (PLP)
JEHANGIR KHAN‑ — Applicant Versus Mst. KHUDEJA‑ — Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1964 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Nasir Ahmad, Member Board of Revenue, |
| Parties | JEHANGIR KHAN‑ — Applicant Versus Mst. KHUDEJA‑ — Respondent |
| Primary Law | ORDER |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1964 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: ORDER as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1964 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Nasir Ahmad, Member Board of Revenue,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1964 W (PLP) (JEHANGIR KHAN‑ — Applicant Versus Mst. KHUDEJA‑ — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Co‑owners‑
Suit for share of produce‑Person recorded as co‑owner‑Entitled to file suit. (b) Co‑owner‑--Suit for share of produce‑Defendant setting up adverse possession against plaintiff ‑Allegation not supported by entries in revenue record‑Defendant may seek his remedy in civil Court. The petitioner Jehangir Khan is a joint landlord in possession of the land, with respondent No.1 Khadeeja who brought a suit before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade against him for her share of the produce for Kharif 1953 to Rabi 1959. The suit was dismissed by the Assistant Collector who held that relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was not proved. The Collector, however, interfered in appeal, relying on entries in the revenue records which clearly indicated that Mst. Khadeeja was a shareholder in the land and there was no reliable evidence to controvert these entries. He accordingly passed a decree for Rs. 1,090‑5‑0 in favour of Khadeeja and against the petitioner. The learned Additional Commissioner has maintained this order and decree in second appeal. Jehangir Khan has now come up in second appeal. The main ground taken up is that Mst. Khadeeja succeeded to the property in dispute contrary to law, and she was not entitled to it both under Custom or Shariaf. The mutation of inheritance now being questioned was decided on 28‑4‑19 5, but the petitioner took no steps either before the Revenue Officers or in the civil Court to have it set aside. This plea would therefore be hardly tenable in a rent suit brought by the co‑landlord for her share of the produce. Another point urged is that the co‑landlord is in adverse possession of the property. It is admitted before me that there is no documentary evidence to the effect that he set up a claim of adverse possession at any time after 1945, and till the present rent suit was brought. He has done so now during the course of these proceedings for the first time. He may, if be likes, have B recourse to the civil Courts but on the existing evidence and the revenue records there is no justification for interference in revision. The co‑landlord unless he has specifically set up adverse posses sion by an overt act, holds the property on behalf of all the landlords. The suit has accordingly been correctly decreed and I would dismiss the revision petition. K. M. A. Revision dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
(a) Co‑owners‑
Suit for share of produce‑Person recorded as co‑owner‑Entitled to file suit. (b) Co‑owner‑--Suit for share of produce‑Defendant setting up adverse possession against plaintiff ‑Allegation not supported by entries in revenue record‑Defendant may seek his remedy in civil Court. The petitioner Jehangir Khan is a joint landlord in possession of the land, with respondent No.1 Khadeeja who brought a suit before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade against him for her share of the produce for Kharif 1953 to Rabi 1959. The suit was dismissed by the Assistant Collector who held that relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was not proved. The Collector, however, interfered in appeal, relying on entries in the revenue records which clearly indicated that Mst. Khadeeja was a shareholder in the land and there was no reliable evidence to controvert these entries. He accordingly passed a decree for Rs. 1,090‑5‑0 in favour of Khadeeja and against the petitioner. The learned Additional Commissioner has maintained this order and decree in second appeal. Jehangir Khan has now come up in second appeal. The main ground taken up is that Mst. Khadeeja succeeded to the property in dispute contrary to law, and she was not entitled to it both under Custom or Shariaf. The mutation of inheritance now being questioned was decided on 28‑4‑19 5, but the petitioner took no steps either before the Revenue Officers or in the civil Court to have it set aside. This plea would therefore be hardly tenable in a rent suit brought by the co‑landlord for her share of the produce. Another point urged is that the co‑landlord is in adverse possession of the property. It is admitted before me that there is no documentary evidence to the effect that he set up a claim of adverse possession at any time after 1945, and till the present rent suit was brought. He has done so now during the course of these proceedings for the first time. He may, if be likes, have B recourse to the civil Courts but on the existing evidence and the revenue records there is no justification for interference in revision. The co‑landlord unless he has specifically set up adverse posses sion by an overt act, holds the property on behalf of all the landlords. The suit has accordingly been correctly decreed and I would dismiss the revision petition. K. M. A. Revision dismissed.