1950SCM R 134 (PLP)

‑‑‑Art. 144‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 185(3)‑‑Contradictory pleas‑ Leave to appeal granted to consider the question as to whether in view of the respondents claim about purchase of disputed land, they could also be given the benefit of adverse possession. Yousaf Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. JAVID 1QBAL, J.‑‑This petition for (cave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore high Court Bahawalpur Bench, dated 1601 March, 1982 whereby the R.S.A. of the petitioners was dismissed. Briefly the facts arc that the land in dispute measures 149 Kanals: It was mortgaged with possession on 17th January, O2‑1 by the mother of the petitioners in favour of the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents by mews of a registered mortgage decd in consideration for a sum of Rs.

500. Mutation. No. 589 regarding the said mortgage was attested on 17 January, 1921. Thereafter; the mortgagees of the disputed land are alleged to have colluded with the Revenue staff and got entered Mutation No. 195 for redemption of the said mortgage on 22nd December, 1937. Then on the same day mutation No. 196 regarding sale of the said land was sanctioned as a result of this collusion. Finally again on the same day Mutation No. 197 regarding exchange on his part by the responjents to some other party was sanctioned. All the said Mutations were without consideration and had not been registered. Therefore, the petitioners brought a suit for a declaration, of redemption as well as of possession that they were owners of the disputed land and were as such entitled to get the mortgage redeemed on payment of the sum of Rs.

500. The suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge on the ground of sale in favour of the respondents of the disputed land as well as their adverse possession thereof although no issue had been framed respecting the claim of adverse possession raised by the respondents. The appeal as well as the R.S.A. of the petitioners were dismissed on both points. Hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued before us that the respondents could not raise the contradictory pleas of sale of disputed land to them by the petitioners or in the alternative their ownership on the pasts of adverse possession. It was also submitted that the High Court did not even discuss the aspect of sale in the impugned judgment. After hearing learned counsel we grant leave in this case inter alia to consider the question as to whether in view of the respondents claim about purchase of the disputed land, they could also be given the benefit of adverse possession. Security to be deposited in the sum of Rs. 5,

000. The appeal to be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties to file all the necessary documents on which they want to place reliance. M.A.K./W‑39/S Leave granted.