1989 PLP 960 (SCMR)
IMAM ALI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD DIN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 960 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ |
| Parties | IMAM ALI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD DIN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Easement, (b) Easement |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 960 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Easement, (b) Easement as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 960 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 960 (SCMR) (IMAM ALI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD DIN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Asaf, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Aslarn Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 12th July, 1988.
- Muhammad Asaf, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Aslarn Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 11th January, 1981 in Civil Revision No.24-D of 1981).
Law of Easement is applicable to evacuee properties transferred under Settlement Laws.
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--Finding whereby dominant and, subservient nature of relevant properties had been clearly established were upheld and leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a defendant against the dismissal of his Civil Revision by the High Court. It had arisen out of a decree passed against him in a suit filed by the respondents' side regarding two easements a street passage and drainage of water. The respondents' property vis‑a‑vis which the existence of these easements has been accepted, was evacuee. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner's property also was evacuee. According to him originally they all formed one unit but were transferred to different parties under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. Learned counsel has contended: that the respondents could not be granted any decree under the law of Easements because both the properties were at one time evacuee; that there was no determination of the "dominant" and "subservient" property; and, that it could not be treated as a case of easement of necessity. None of the arguments has any force. Law of Easements, it is well settled now, is being applied to the evacuee properties transferred under the Settlement Laws. The second argument has also no force because according to the findings reached by all the learned Courts below, the dominant and subservient nature of the relevant properties has clearly been established in this case. The last I; argument is without any factual basis. There is no finding of fact in the impugned judgment in favour of the petitioner's contentions. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused. M.Y.H./I‑69/S Leave refused.