2004 PLP 1534 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD MANSHA and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ZULFIQAR ALI and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1534 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD MANSHA and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ZULFIQAR ALI and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1534 (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 2004 PLP 1534 (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: 2004 PLP 1534 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD MANSHA and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ZULFIQAR ALI and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Rafique Warraich for Petitioners.
- Khalid Ikram Khatana for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.42‑‑‑Suit for possession on the basis of title was concurrently decreed by the Courts below‑‑Defendants asserted that they were not occupying more than their entitlement‑‑ Tehsildar was directed to effect demarcation on the site and to submit a report in Court identifying the total area of disputed Killa No and the respective areas in the said Killa No. in possession of the parties Contents of the report were not disputed, both the parties were found in possession of area in excess to their entitlement and a street separated them‑‑ Suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed in circumstances, judgments and decrees of the Courts below were set aside by the High Court.
Judgment & Decree
Khalid Ikram Khatana for Respondents. The report of the Tehsildar, Chiniot has been received pursuant to the previous order dated 23‑1‑2003. From the said report, I am satisfied that the petitioners are occupying land in excess of 8 Marlas in Killa No.21/2 in Square No.53. Even, according to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners recorded in paragraph 2 of the previous order dated 23‑1‑2003, it was asserted by learned counsel for the petitioners that they were A not occupying more than 8 Marlas in Killa No.21/2 in Square No.53.
2. Admittedly, the entitlement of the petitioners in: Killa No.21/2 in Square No.53 arises from the sale‑deed Exh. D.1. In the said deed, it is 8 Marlas alone in Killa No.21/2 in Square No.53 which have been conveyed to the petitioners. While deciding the present petition, I am not concerned as to whether the petitioners own additional land in some other Killa, particularly Killa No.61/1/1.
3. In the above circumstances, Tehsildar, Chiniot, was directed to effect demarcation on the site and to submit a report in Court identifying the total area of Killa No.21 /2 in Square No.53 and the respective areas in the said Killa number in possession of the parties. The said report dated 26‑3‑2003 has been submitted in Court.
4. I have gone through the report of the Tehsildar with the assistance of both learned counsel. The contents of the report are not disputed by either side. It is clear from the report that the respondents/ plaintiffs, namely, Zulfiqar etc., are in possession of 3 Marlas 112, sq. ft., in Killa No.21/2. As such; the respondents, C. who have title to 3 Marlas of land vide Hiba nama dated 25‑10‑1984 (Exh.P.2) are in possession of the area equivalent to their entitlement. In fact, they are in possession of 112 sq. ft. land over and above their entitlement.
5. It is correct that according to the report, the petitioners/defendants are also in occupation of land exceeding their entitlement in Killa No.21/2. This circumstance, however, has no relevance the present case because it was the respondents who had filed the suit out of which the present petition arises and it was, therefore, for them to establish their title in the land.
6. In addition to the above, the report of the Tehsildar also shows that there is a street which is a public thoroughfare, separating the area occupied by the respondents/plaintiffs from the area m possession of the petitioners/defendants. This circumstance also lends credence to the submission made on behalf of the petitioners to the effect that the respondents/plaintiffs were in possession, only in respect of the area now occupied by them (as appearing in Tehsildar's report) and that they were not illegally dispossessed by the petitioners/defendants.
7. In the above circumstances, the impugned judgments and decrees are set aside and the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs is dismissed. M.I./M‑2166/L Petition dismissed.