SCMR 1987

1987 PLP 168 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑Petitioner Versus JALAL DIN and another‑‑Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Civil Petition No.701 of 1986, decided on 11th November, 1986.
Honorable Judges
Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1987 PLP 168 (SCMR)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ
Parties MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑Petitioner Versus JALAL DIN and another‑‑Respondents
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 168 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 168 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 168 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑Petitioner Versus JALAL DIN and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

Representation

  • Malik Talib Hussain Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salah‑ud‑Din, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
  • Malik Abdul Majid, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 11th November, 1986.

Headnotes / Summary

(From the order dated 20‑4‑1986 of the Lahore High Court, passed in Civil Revision No.804‑D of 1986). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 5.115‑‑Suit for possession decreed in appeal and decision upheld in revision‑‑Petitioner having failed to establish that he had matured his title over suit land through adverse possession, petition for leave to appeal dismissed as devoid of force.

Judgment & Decree

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 5.115‑‑Suit for possession decreed in appeal and decision upheld in revision‑‑Petitioner having failed to establish that he had matured his title over suit land through adverse possession, petition for leave to appeal dismissed as devoid of force. Malik Talib Hussain Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salah‑ud‑Din, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Malik Abdul Majid, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th November, 1986. ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.‑‑This order will dispose of a petition for leave to appeal filed by Muhammad Alam against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 20‑4‑1986, whereby his revision petition was dismissed.

2. The brief facts are that Jalal Din respondent brought a suit for possession of land measuring 3 Kanals 19 Marlas, situate in area of village Chiwinda, Tehsil Pasroor, District Sialkot, against the petitioner and respondents 2 to

10. The suit was contested and the stand of the petitioner and other defendants /respondents was that they had purchased the suit land through a registered saledeed dated 25th April, 1930. After framing the necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties, the learned Civil Judge, Sialkot, dismissed the suit. On appeal by Jalai Din, the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, however, found that he was owners of only 19 Marlas bearing Khasra No. 3/18/2 transferred to his father as an evacuee property and it was in possession of the petitioner and others. The appeal of Jalal Din respondent to the extent of 19 Marlas was accepted and the petitioner was directed to remove the malba within sixty days, vide judgment, dated 27‑2‑1986. this time the appellate order was impugned by the petitioner by way of a revision petition which was dismissed through the impugned order.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record of the case and we find that the petitioner has not been able to establish that he has matured his title over the suit land through adverse possession. We, therefore, find no force in this petitions and the same is dismissed. M. I. Petition dismissed.