2004 PLP 392 (SCMR)
Mst. RESHMAN BIBI ‑ ‑Petitioner Versus AMIR and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 392 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rana Bhagwandas, Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramday, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. RESHMAN BIBI ‑ ‑Petitioner Versus AMIR and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 392 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 392 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rana Bhagwandas, Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramday, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 392 (SCMR) (Mst. RESHMAN BIBI ‑ ‑Petitioner Versus AMIR and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 9th July, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 19‑8‑1999 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in Civil Revision No.454‑D of 1999). (a) Adverse possession‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Claim of adverse possession by co‑sharer‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑One co‑sharer is an owner in each and every inch of joint property‑‑‑No co‑sharer, in such circumstances, can claim adverse possession. (b) Adverse possession‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Raising pleas of adverse possession and absolute ownership at the same time‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Adverse possession is not referable to a lawful title
Both pleas are destructive of each other. (c) Co‑sharer‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Co‑sharership is the result of devolution of inheritance Co‑heirs become co‑sharers, the moment inheritance opens‑‑‑Even entry of mutation etc., is also not necessary.
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 19‑8‑1999 passed by an Honourable Single Judge of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench in Civil Revision No.454‑D of 1999.
2. Mst. Reshman Bibi filed a suit against the respondents claiming that she was the exclusive owner‑in‑possession of the suit‑land by adverse possession for a period of more than twelve years. The suit was resisted by the respondents and on 26‑2‑1995, it was decreed by the trial Court. The respondents filed appeal heard by learned Additional District Judge, Pakpattan, who accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit. The decision was upheld in the revision and hence this petition.
3. It is abundantly proved on record that as per Revenue documents the parties are co‑sharers as well as co‑heirs. It is a settled proposition of law that one co‑sharer is an owner in each and every inch of the Joint property. In these circumstances, no co‑sharer can claim adverse possession.
4. From the pleadings it appears that the lady‑plaintiff had taken the plea of absolute ownership in the suit‑land but at the same time has claimed adverse possession as well. Again we are constrained to observe that adverse possession is not referable to a lawful title. Both the pleas are destructive of each other. From 1958 onwards the parties are recorded as co‑owners. There is a peculiarity in the co‑ownership as well, in that, the co‑sharership is the result of devolution of inheritance. Needless to reiterate that devolution of inheritance is automatic and the co‑heirs become co‑sharers, the moment inheritance opens. Even the entry of mutation etc. is also not necessary.
5. In the circumstances, the evidence has rightly been appreciated by the two Courts below. We need not interfere in the concurrent findings which otherwise are correct as well. There being no force in the petition, it is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. S.A.K./R‑51/S Leave refused.