1989 PLP 789 (SCMR)
SHAH MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus PERVAIZ HUSSAIN — Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 789 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhamad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ |
| Parties | SHAH MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus PERVAIZ HUSSAIN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 789 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 789 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhamad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 789 (SCMR) (SHAH MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus PERVAIZ HUSSAIN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Pir Anwar Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Adam Choudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 13th July, 1988.
- Pir Anwar Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Adam Choudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 16th February 1981 in RSA No. 32 of 1981),
Art. 185(3)--Concurrent verdict--Respondent's suit for possession of plot decreed by Trial Court and such decree upheld by High Court in second appeal- Appellant's claim that he was in possession of property as owner and that such property was his ancestral property not established on record--Unanimous verdict of all the Courts below being against petitioner, and there being no substance in petition against such concurrent verdict, (leave to appeal was refused).
Judgment & Decree
]AVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Shah Muhammad petitioner and is directed against order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 16th February, 1981. The dispute between the parties is m respect of a residential plot. Briefly the facts are that the respondent filed a suit for possession of the said property claiming himself to be its owner against the present petitioner who was alleged to have taken possession of the same without any entitlement. The trial Court decreed the suit which was upheld on appeal by the Additional District Judge. His RSA was subsequently dismissed by the Lahore High Court for the reason that the petitioner was unable to produce any cogent evidence in support of his assertion that he was owner of the disputed property as it was his ancestral property. On the other hand the respondent in support of his claim of ownership of the said property besides producing oral evidence had also produced documentary evidence in the form of sale‑deeds Exhs. P.4 and P.5 indicating that he was owner of the property in dispute. Learned counsel before us attempted to argue that the Lahore High Court did not make a proper appraisal of the evidence in the instant case. He contended that there were some criminal cases in the form of a private complaint P. 1 and F.I.R. P. 2 registered pertaining to the said property which showed that the petitioner was in possession of the disputed property and that he was dispossessed by the respondent. We have considered the argument of the learned counsel and find it without any force. There was no evidence on the record to establish that the petitioner was in possession of the property as owner or that the property in question was his ancestral property. Consequently there is a unanimous verdict of the two Courts below as well as the High Court as against him. The result is that there is no substance in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. .