1995SCMR482 (PLP)
MAQBOOL AHMAD and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUNIR AHMAD and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995SCMR482 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian and Wali Muhammad Khan, |
| Parties | MAQBOOL AHMAD and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUNIR AHMAD and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Co‑sharer‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995SCMR482 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Co‑sharer‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995SCMR482 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian and Wali Muhammad Khan,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995SCMR482 (PLP) (MAQBOOL AHMAD and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUNIR AHMAD and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- MA. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing. 8th May, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 7‑3‑1993 of Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No. 90‑D of 1989). ‑‑‑‑Plea of adverse possession by co‑sharers against other co‑sharers‑‑ Legality‑‑‑No co‑sharer without first partitioning of property and without getting possession of his share could set up a plea of adverse possession‑‑ Entry of a co‑sharer into the partitioned share of his co‑sharer could be adverse/hostile, only after partition otherwise, co‑sharer could not claim adverse possession against other co‑sharers for co‑sharers are considered to have a joint possession.‑‑‑[Adverse possession].
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL M1AN; J: ‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 7‑3‑1993 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore Court at Bahawalpur Bench in Civil Revision No. 90‑D of 1989 filed by the petitioners against the concurrent judgments of the two Courts below dated 8‑8‑1982 and 22‑2‑1983 of the learned Tehsildar/Assistant Collector Grade‑I exercising the powers of Civil Judge and learned Additional District Judge, Rahimyar Khan in Suit No. Nil and Civil Appeal No. 46 of 1982, dismissing the same.
2. The brief facts are that the respondents fled an application for partition of suit land as the same was owned by them and the petitioners, before the above Revenue Officer, which was tried as a suit. The petitioners filed a written statement in which it was pleaded that they were the owners of the entire suit land by virtue of adverse possession. The above suit was decreed on 31‑6‑1979 but upon appeal, namely, Civil Appeal No. 179 of 1980, the same was remanded t4 the teal Court. Thereupon, the above judgment was passed by the learned Tehsildar/Assistant Collector exercising the powers of the Civil Judge. Against the above judgment, the petitioners filed above Civil Appeal without any success and then above Civil Revision which also failed. The petitioners have, therefore, filed present petition for leave to appeal.
3. In support of the above petition Mr. MA. War, learned ASC; appearing for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that the three Courts below were not justified in decreeing and maintaining the partition decree on the basis of the material on record. There is a concurrent finding of all the Courts that the petitioners failed to prove their adverse possession. The plea of adverse possession by the petitioners, who were co‑sharer in the suit land, against the respondents was not well‑founded as no co‑sharer without first partitioning of the property and without getting respective possession of their share can set up a plea of adverse possession. The entry of a co‑sharer into the partition shared by his co‑sharer should be adverse/hostile, otherwise the co‑sharer cannot claim adverse possession against his other co‑sharer as it is well‑settled proposition of law that co‑sharers are considered to have a joint possession.
4. The petition has no merits. Leave is refused. AA/M‑2091/S Leave refused.