1989SCMR1136 (PLP)
FAQIR MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD — Respondent
| Citation | 1989SCMR1136 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | FAQIR MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Adverse possession |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR1136 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Adverse possession as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR1136 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR1136 (PLP) (FAQIR MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Mahmood Aslam Pirzada, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 30th August, 1988.
- Muhammad Mahmood Aslam Pirzada, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the High Court, Lahore, dated 19-10-1983 in C.R. No.140-D-82/BWP).
Onus--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--Suit was dismissed as time barred and it was held that the petitioner had become owner on account of adverse possession--Respondent's appeal was allowed and findings of fact by Trial Court were reversed--Petitioner's revision before High Court having been dismissed, he sought leave to appeal--Held, onus regarding adverse possession fell heavily on the petitioner--Petitioner had admitted m a complaint case before a Magistrate that he was a tenant of the respondent and his explanation that the said statement was made in respect of another house was an afterthought- Findings of fact against petitioner did not suffer from any infirmity--Leave to F appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑The defendant in a suit for possession of a house has sought leave to appeal, against the dismissal by the High Court, of his Civil Revision. The respondent's suit was dismissed as time‑barred and it was held that the petitioner had become owner on account of adverse possession. The respondent's appeal was allowed. The findings of fact by the trial Court were reversed. The petitioner's Civil Revision having been dismissed, he has now sought leave to appeal. It is not denied that the onus regarding adverse possession fell heavily only the petitioner. It is also not denied that the petitioner had in complaint before a Magistrate admitted that he was a tenant under the plaintiff‑respondent. The explanation that the said statement was made in respect of another house obviously was an afterthought. The findings of fact rendered against the petitioner do not suffer from any infirmity. This petition, therefore, is dismissed. M.BA./F‑111/S Petition dismissed.