2004 PLP 1132 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SHAFI and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1132 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rana Bhagwandas and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAFI and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1132 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 1132 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rana Bhagwandas and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1132 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SHAFI and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 8th May, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 6-5-1999 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No. 1224 of 1998).
S. 8
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Courts below decreed suit while relying upon registered sale-deed of plaintiff coupled with entries in Jamabandi Register-- Concurrent findings of fact were to the effect that plaintiff was lawful owner of suit-land, and status of defendant was that of trespasser-- Defence plea had been rejected throughout that he had purchased suit land through unregistered sale-deed for consideration of less than Rs.100
Impugned judgments did not suffer from any legal infirmity or misreading or non-reading of evidence of any material piece of evidence
Supreme Court dismissed petition.
Judgment & Decree
RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.
Petitioners seek leave to appeal from the Lahore High Court judgment, dated 6-5-1999 upholding concurrent findings of fact in a suit for possession of the suit property brought by the respondent against the petitioners.
2. Respondent filed a suit for possession of the suit property claiming to be the owner thereof on the averments that the petitioners had forcibly occupied the same. It was the case of the plaintiff that during pendency of earlier suit for permanent injunction the petitioners encroached upon the property in suit hence the suit for possession.
3. Petitioners contested the suit on the premises that the property had been sold by the respondent and that they had been in possession thereof for the last more than 12 years and lastly that the suit was barred by time. They disclosed names of different persons between whom the property changed hands, which was ultimately purchased by them in the year 1955 through unregistered sale-deed dated 7-5-1955. On assessment of evidence trial Court decreed the suit. First appeal preferred by the petitioners and the Civil Revision in the High Court failed. Hence the present petition for leave to appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the document of sale executed by Lal Khan in favour of the petitioners regarding transfer of property for consideration being less than Rs.100 did not require registration under the provisions of law and that there was no evidence to suggest that the petitioners had forcibly occupied the property in suit. All the Courts below have relied upon the registered sale-deed in favour of the respondent coupled with the entries in the Jamabandi Register. There are concurrent findings of fact to the effect that the respondent was the lawful owner of the property in suit and the defendants status was not better than trespassers hence the defence plea was repelled and petitioners defence rejected throughout. Learned counsel contended that the petitioners were disallowed to cross examine D.W.5 Lal Khan who deposed against their interest and the trial Court acted illegally in refusing to permit the petitioners to cross examine the witness being a hostile witness. This argument was raised before the High Court and the learned Judge in Chambers has dealt with it elaborately and in a comprehensive manner which need not be reiterated in this judgment.
5. In our view judgments rendered by the Courts below and affirmed by the High Court do not suffer from any legal infirmity or illegality. There is no misreading or non-reading of any material piece of evidence on the record nor is it a fit case for interference by this Court.
6. Resultantly this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. S.A.K./M-584/S Petition dismissed.