1991 PLP 2025 (SCMR)
Haji MIR BAZ KHAN — Appellant Versus CHAIRMAN, TOWN COMMITTEE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 2025 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman, Ali Hussain Qazilbash and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, JJ |
| Parties | Haji MIR BAZ KHAN — Appellant Versus CHAIRMAN, TOWN COMMITTEE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Evidence Act (I of 1872) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 2025 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Evidence Act (I of 1872) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 2025 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman, Ali Hussain Qazilbash and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 2025 (SCMR) (Haji MIR BAZ KHAN — Appellant Versus CHAIRMAN, TOWN COMMITTEE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tahir Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and SA.M. Qureshi, Advocate -on-Record for Appellant.
- H.K.N. Kohli Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No-2.
- Date of hearing: 28th May, 1991.
- Tahir Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and SA.M. Qureshi, Advocate ‑on‑Record for Appellant.
- H.K.N. Kohli Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No‑2.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Balochistan High Court, dated 7-11-1987 in Civil Revision No.89 of 1987).
S.116
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Suit for declaration and injunction relating to property in question-- Plaintiff's suit was dismissed by all the Courts below including the High Court- Validity
Admitted feature of the case was that plaintiff was paying rent to defendant's father and after his death to defendant, without any objection or protest
Plaintiff was thus, in possession of property in question, as a tenant of defendant, having no other possessory title
Plaintiff, according to his own statement was not entitled to any declaration or equitable relief and was estopped to challenge the title of his landlord in view of doctrine of estoppel
Plaintiff had no legal character which had been infringed
All the Courts below had concurrently found against plaintiff
Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. Hafizullah Khan v. Government of Pakistan 1975 SCMR 211 ref. Respondent No.l: Ex parte.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑This appeal by leave of the court is directed against the judgment of the High Court dated 7‑11‑1987.
2. The facts briefly stated are that the appellant filed a suit for declaration and injunction claiming to have constructed a shop on Khasra No.375/1, measuring 129‑1/2 sq.ft. on Masjid Road, Naushki, and the same is in his possession for the last 20 years. But the respondent got this land allotted from the Town Committee, Naushki, illegally. The suit on contest was dismissed by the trial Court. The appellant's appeal before the District Judge and his Revision Petition before the High Court were dismissed by the respective Courts.
3. According to the appellant, the land underneath the shop was not allotted to the respondent No.2 but he started realising rent from the appellant through misrepresentation. The case of the respondent was that the land was allotted to his father Ganga Ram and the appellant was inducted as tenant in 1957. He was paying rent at the rate of Rs.15 per month to his father. After the death of Ganga Ram, the appellant started paying rent to the respondent since 20‑10‑1979 and also executed a lease deed in his favour.
4. The admitted position is that the land underneath the shop is owned by the Town Committee Naushki. It was leased out to the respondent. The appellant's claim for relief in the suit was that he was entitled to the transfer of the land on the basis of long possession. The accepted feature of the case is that the appellant was paying rent to Ganga Ram and after his death to the respondent without any objection or protest. The appellant is in possession of the shop as tenant of the respondent. He had no other possessory title.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant occupied the land not as trespasser and he is licensee of the respondent. This contention is factually and legally unsound. The appellant, according to his statement, is not entitled to any declaration or equitable relief. The appellant is estopped to challenge the title of his landlord. In Hafizullah Khan v. Govt. of Pakistan (1975 SCMR 211), it has been held as under :‑ "The petitioner admits that he entered the property with the permission of Bhandari and paid rent to him or to his Attorney at the rate of Rs.18 p.m. In these circumstances, the petitioner did not have a prima facie case in view of the doctrine of estoppel contained in section 116 of the Evidence Act."
6. The appellant has no legal character which has been infringed. There are concurrent findings of all the Courts against the appellant. This appeal has no merit which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. AA./M‑1528/S Appeal dismissed.