2003 PLP 1013 (SCMR)
JAM BALLI alias WALI through Legal Heirs and others — Petitioners Versus MEHAR KHAN through Legal Heirs and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1013 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rana Bhagwandas and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | JAM BALLI alias WALI through Legal Heirs and others — Petitioners Versus MEHAR KHAN through Legal Heirs and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1013 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1013 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rana Bhagwandas and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1013 (SCMR) (JAM BALLI alias WALI through Legal Heirs and others — Petitioners Versus MEHAR KHAN through Legal Heirs and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Ali Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th June, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 23-6-1999 passed in Civil Revision No: 381-D of 1983).
S. 42
Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 185(3)
Tenant claiming title on the basis of adverse possession
Concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below
Plaintiffs had been recorded as Ghair Dakheelkar in Jamabandi Register (Revenue Record) since 1937-38 which reflected that they were tenants-at-will
Revenue Authorities as well as all the Courts below declined-to declare the plaintiffs as owners on the basis of adverse possession
Plaintiffs were legally not entitled to a decree with regard to their title on the basis of adverse possession
Concurrent findings of fact by three Courts below including High Court did not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity or jurisdictional error
Leave to appeal was-refused.
Judgment & Decree
RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.
Petitioners seek leave to appeal against Lahore High Court judgment, dated 23-6-1999 in Civil Revision No381-D of 1983 dismissing the same and affirming the judgments and decrees by the trial Court as well as First Appellate Court.
2. Petitioners filed a suit for declaration of title on the basis of oral sale and alternatively for ownership on the basis of adverse possession. At the trial they could not establish the same, as there was no adequate evidence to prove any lawful sale in their favour, Likewise, they could not substantiate their claim of adverse possession with the consequence that the suit as also the appeal did not succeed. Their civil revision also did not bear fruit, hence this petition.
3. On petitioners' counsel's own statement, petitioners have been recorded as `Ghair Dakheelkar' in the Jamabandi Register since 1937-38, which would reflect that they were tenants-at-will. In law, a tenant cannot raise the plea of title against real owner, therefore, in our considered view, the petitioners were legally not entitled to a decree with regard to their title on the basis of adverse possession. There are concurrent, findings by three Courts below, including the High Court, which do not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity or jurisdictional error. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused. M.H./J-27/S Petition dismissed.