2006 PLP 969 (YLR)
IRSHAD HUSSAIN and others — Appellants Versus Mst. KANEEZ FATIMA and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 969 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja, J |
| Parties | IRSHAD HUSSAIN and others — Appellants Versus Mst. KANEEZ FATIMA and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 969 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 969 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 969 (YLR) (IRSHAD HUSSAIN and others — Appellants Versus Mst. KANEEZ FATIMA and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Farooq Qureshi Chishti for Appellants.
- Hafiz Khalil Ahmad for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th April, 2005.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 8 & 42
Suit for declaration of title and possession
Entire documentary evidence comprising relevant Revenue Record had shown that defendants were in possession of suit-land since long and were not paying any lagan to plaintiffs
Pleas of plaintiffs that land in dispute originally comprised in Shamlat and plaintiffs had become owners thereof, after Shamlat land had been partitioned and also that possession of defendants was permissive, were extraneous to the contents of plaint filed by plaintiffs wherein there was no mention of any Shamlat or permissive possession of defendants
Appellate Court below had justifiably concluded that title of defendants had matured through adverse possession
Findings of Appellate Court below, could not be interfered with in second appeal, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.--This regular second appeal filed by the plaintiffs impugns the judgment and decree of the Court of first appeal dated 8-3-2000 whereby the decree of the learned trial Court dated 13-12-1993 was set aside and the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs seeking declaration of title and possession of the suit property, was dismissed. The facts of the case have been elaborately set out in the appellate judgment and need not, therefore, be reproduced in extenso.
2. The entire documentary evidence comprising of the relevant Revenue Record shows that the respondents/defendants were in possession of the suit-land since long and were not paying any lagan to the appellants. The case being set up by the appellants before me is that the land was originally comprised in the shamlat and the appellants became owners thereof after the Shamlat land had been partitioned. It was also argued on behalf of the appellants that the possession of the respondents/defendants was permissive as they had continued in possession after the partition of the shamlat. These pleas, however, are extraneous to the contents of the plaint filed by the appellants wherein there is no mention of any shamlat or permissible possession of the respondents.
3. In the foregoing circumstances, the learned Appellate Court has justifiably concluded that the title of the respondents/ defendants had matured through adverse possession. Learned counsel for the appellants was not in a position to show the existence of any of the grounds mentioned in section 100, C.P.C. which would justify interference in the appellate decrees.
4. In the circumstances, this appeal is dismissed. H.B.T./I-116/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.