1995SCMR746 (PLP)
ASGHAR KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1995SCMR746 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ASGHAR KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995SCMR746 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995SCMR746 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995SCMR746 (PLP) (ASGHAR KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- A.W. Butt, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate- on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 20th July, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 17‑5‑1992 in C.R. No. 1.938 of 1991). Settlement Scheme No. VII. ‑Constitution of Pakistan n (1973), Art. 185 (3) ‑‑‑Transfer of house in question‑‑‑Respondent's suit for possession of house in, question, was decreed uptil High Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Respondent had produced order of allotment of house in his favour, boundaries whereof, he had given in his plaint‑‑‑Petitioner had also produced an order by which a house in the village had been transferred to his father but he had led no evidence to show that the house transferred to his father was the same as the house in question‑‑‑No basis for interference with concurrent findings of Courts below were pointed out‑‑ Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑The parties are closely related. On 29‑9‑1969 the respondent was transferred a house in Bhai Pheru under Settlement Scheme No. VII. On 10‑6‑1974 he brought a suit for possession of the house against the petitioner alleging that the latter had forcefully occupied it. The suit was resisted by the petitioner who alleged that the house had been transferred to his father and that it did not belong to respondent. The trial Court decreed the suit and its judgment was upheld by the Additional District Judge in first appeal and by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. In support of his case the respondent has produced the order of allotment of the house in his favour. In his plaint he has given the boundaries of the house. The petitioner alleged that the house in his occupation was not the same which had been transferred to the respondent. He also produced an order by which a house in Bhai Pheru had been transferred to his father. However, he led no evidence to show that the house transferred to his father was the same as the house in dispute. In the circumstances, we find no basis for interfering with the concurrent findings of the three Courts. Leave is refused. A.A./A‑1150/S Leave refused.