2010 PLP 1344 (SCMR)
ABDUL REHMAN and others — Appellants Versus RABOO and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 1344 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja and Ghulam Rabbani, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL REHMAN and others — Appellants Versus RABOO and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 1344 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 1344 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja and Ghulam Rabbani, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 1344 (SCMR) (ABDUL REHMAN and others — Appellants Versus RABOO and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Anwar Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Ali Akbar, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants.
- Syed Shaheenshah Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Ghulam Qadir Jatoi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos.1 - 3.
- Ansari Abdul Latif, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos.4-9.
- Date of hearing: 9th April, 2010.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 7-2-2009 passed by the Sindh High Court, Karachi in IInd Appeal No. 17 of 2007).
Art. 185(3)
Scope
Supreme Court does not embark upon a fresh factual inquiry in exercise of the jurisdiction under Art. 185(3) of the Constitution, particularly when the reasoning in the impugned judgment is neither fanciful nor arbitrary.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
The appellants impugn the judgment of the High Court of Sindh dated 7-2-2009, whereby a second appeal filed by the respondents was allowed and the concurrent judgments of the two Courts below were set aside. As a consequence, the suit filed by the appellants for possession, mesne profits etc. was dismissed. The facts of the case have been duly noted in the impugned judgment. The same, therefore, need not be reproduced in extenso.
2. The main argument advanced on behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs was that the respondents/defendants were trespassers and, therefore, could not question the gift claimed by the appellants from their father Abdul Aziz. He also cited law in support of this proposition. We, however, note that the argument being advanced is misconceived. The appellants/plaintiffs claimed to be donees of the land. In the impugned judgment, it has been held for cogent reasons that the appellants had failed to prove the gift. In these circumstances, the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and the case-law referred by him become inapplicable. The title of the father of the petitioners is also based on certain entries in the revenue record and nothing more. The presumption in favour of the petitioners, based on Section 52 of the Land Revenue Act has been adequately dealt with by the High Court as per discussion appearing at pages 7 and 8 of the impugned judgment. The High Court has rightly disbelieved the contention that the respondents-defendants had encroached upon the land in dispute.
3. We also note that the respondents admittedly are in possession of the land since long. They have produced credible documentary evidence including correspondence from the record of WAPDA etc. to controvert the averments made by the appellants in their plaint in respect of possession. It is not for this Court to embark upon a fresh factual inquiry in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, particularly when the reasoning in the impugned judgment is neither fanciful nor arbitrary. As a consequence, this appeal being without merit is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. M.B.A./A-22/SC Appeal dismisse