1989 PLP 1110 (SCMR)
SHAH JAHAN and 3 others‑‑Petitioners Versus NISAR KHAN and 7 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1110 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Usman Ali Shah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | SHAH JAHAN and 3 others‑‑Petitioners Versus NISAR KHAN and 7 others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1110 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1110 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Usman Ali Shah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1110 (SCMR) (SHAH JAHAN and 3 others‑‑Petitioners Versus NISAR KHAN and 7 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Hafiz SA. Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court with Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 12th April, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 19th December, 1987 of the Peshawar High Court, D.I. Khan Bench, in Civil Revision No.123 of 1987) Adverse possession‑‑ ‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑Findings of fact by all the Courts below were against the petitioners and they had throughout failed in their claim‑‑Petitioners contended that the plea of estoppel was not properly put in the form of an issue; that they being in possession through an ostensible gift which was earlier annulled they had fully discharged the burden of issue regarding adverse possession and that respondents having not executed the earlier decree, petitioners should have been held to be in adverse possession on account of said reasons‑‑Held, no application was moved so as to correct the issue at proper stage, otherwise too this was hardly a ground for reopening the decision based on concurrent findings of fact by all the Courts below against the petitioner‑‑Even if the respondents had not executed any decree against the petitioners that by itself would not be a ground for setting aside the findings of fact that petitioners' alleged possession was never hostile or adverse.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the plaintiff side in a suit for declaration and injunction based on claim of adverse possession; against the dismissal of their Revision Petition by the High Court. Learned counsel in the very outset stated that the dispute was amongst two brothers, now being represented by the two sides in this petition and further that the findings of fact by all the Courts below are against the petitioners and they have throughout failed in their claim. He, however, contended that the plea of estoppel was not properly put in the form of an issue; that the petitioners being in possession through an ostensible gift which was earlier annulled they had fully discharged the burden of issue regarding adverse possession; and lastly, that the respondents not having executed the earlier decree, the petitioners should have been held to be in adverse possession on account of this reason also. None of the pleas raised by the learned counsel will justify grant of leave to appeal in the circumstances of the case. Admittedly, no application was moved so as to correct the issues at proper stage. Otherwise too, this is hardly a ground for reopening the decision based on concurrent findings of fact by all the Courts below rendered against the petitioners. The second argument also is of no substance‑‑which rather goes against the petitioners that the alleged initial entry was not hostile. Subsequently also at no stage it was a case of adverse possession. Similarly the last plea raised by the learned counsel is also without any force. Even if the respondents side has not executed any decree against the petitioners that by itself would not be a ground for setting aside the findings of fact that the petitioners' alleged possession was never hostile or adverse. This petition is devoid of any force and is accordingly dismissed. M.BA./S‑273/S Petition dismissed.