P L D 1994 Supreme Court 353 (PLP)
FARID KHAN and 3 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ABDUL LATIF and 11 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1994 Supreme Court 353 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Fazal llahi Khan and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ |
| Parties | FARID KHAN and 3 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ABDUL LATIF and 11 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1994 Supreme Court 353 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1994 Supreme Court 353 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Fazal llahi Khan and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1994 Supreme Court 353 (PLP) (FARID KHAN and 3 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ABDUL LATIF and 11 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mian Shakirullah Jan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th October, 1993,
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 11‑1‑1993 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, in Civil Revision No.12 of 1993). SC 3531 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑
0. VIII, R.2‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3) ‑‑‑ Contradictory pleas in written statement‑‑‑Defendants raising contradictory pleas in written statement i.e., plea of adverse possession and that of entitlement for the improvement‑‑‑Defendants could not substantiate such pleas by evidence‑‑ Plaintiffs' suit on basis of ownership was decreed by all the Courts below‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Concurrent findings of three Courts below were fully supported by the evidence on record‑‑‑No case was made out for leave to appeal which was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal is prayed for against the judgment and decree of Peshawar High Court, Peshawar dated 11‑1‑1993 in Civil Revision Petition No. 12 of 1993. Respondents/plaintiff suit for declaration and possession of a house rented out to the petitioners/ defendants instituted on 8‑9‑1981 was resisted by the defendants on the plea of adverse possession for more that l2 years and on the ground that they have raised construction to the tune of Rs.80,000 to which they would be entitled in case the respondents/plaintiff's suit is decreed. After recording evidence of the parties the learned trial Judge held that the defendants failed to substantiate the pleas of adverse possession and entitlement for the improvement. The plaintiff was held to be the owner of the suit property decreed the suit on 19‑7‑1989. The petitioners' appeal and revision both were dismissed by Additional District Judge, Peshawar and the High Court vide their judgments dated 15‑11‑1992 and 11-1‑1993, respectively. Leave to appeal is prayed for against the judgment of the High Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and perusal of the record we find that the petitioners/defendants raised contradictory pleas i.e. they denied the respondents/plaintiffs' ownership and at the same time claimed to be in possession of the property through an alleged agreement and on its basis claimed the costs of improvement made by them. Their case that the property in question was a vacant site (Banjar Qadeem) and that they, through their own resources ‑have raised construction on it is not substantiated in the evidence on record. The concurrent findings of the three Courts below on the material issues are fully supported by the evidence on record. No case, therefore, has been made out for leave to appeal. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. AA./F‑297/S Leave refused.