1989 PLP 1402 (SCMR)
SULTAN and 13 others Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD alias MUHAMMAD BAKHSH and 23 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1402 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | SULTAN and 13 others Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD alias MUHAMMAD BAKHSH and 23 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1402 (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 1989 PLP 1402 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1402 (SCMR) (SULTAN and 13 others Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD alias MUHAMMAD BAKHSH and 23 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Jawaid Anwar Buttar, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Abul Asim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos.l and 2.
- Date of hearing: 25th February, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, dated 27‑11‑1984, passed in C.R. No.65‑D/84/BWP). ‑‑‑S.42‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Declaratory suit for possession claiming title through an oral sale and also on adverse possession‑ Petitioner, in order to prove oral sale produced a witness who himself was a petitioner in the case and his statement was not proved by any documentary evidence‑‑Petitioners were the co‑sharers in the Khata and had been shown in the Hisadari possession, and as such they could not‑ be said to be in adverse possession‑‑View taken by High Court and Appellate Court was based on proper appreciation of evidence on record‑as same points were raised before them upon which they gave the correct verdict‑‑No ground had been made out by petitioners for interference by Supreme Court‑‑Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioners. They succeeded in obtaining decree in a declaratory suit for possession before the trial Court. However, the appeal of the present respondents was accepted before the District Judge, Rahim Yar Khan vide judgment dated 23‑1‑1984. The petitioners' revision petition was also dismissed by the High Court vide impugned judgment. The petitioners claim the title of the suit land through an oral sale and also on adverse possession but their counsel failed to show us any authentic evidence or documentary proof to have been placed on record, which can support their case for consideration of this Court. For the oral sale the petitioners produced only Gamoon P.W.1 who is also the petitioner in this case. He has stated that the land was purchased from Jamsheer and Gulsheer fathers of the present respondents Nos. 1 and 2 abbout 60 years back and a report to this effect was lodged with the Patwari which was thumb impressed by the abovesaid vendors. This statement does not f rind any documentary or otherwise support because the Patwari has not been produced. It shows that there is no such document or entries available in the Revenue record. As far as the adverse poossession as claimed by the petitioners is concerned, it is an admitted fact that the petitioners are the co‑sharers in the Khata and have been shown in the Hisadan possession, therefore, they cannot be said to be in adverse possession. As it is a matter‑ of common sense that if the petitioners are considered to be in poossession of the suit land through a sale, then there is no question of an adverse poassession. We have carefully considerned the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners in the light of the findings of the appellate as well as revisional Courts. In our considered opinion the view taken by the learned Judges of these Courts are based on proper appreciiation of the evidence on record as the same points were also raised before them upon which they have given the correct verdict and no ground has been made out by the learned counsel for the petitioners for any interference by this Court. The result is that this petiition has no merit and is dismissed. Leave refused. M.B.A./S‑260/S Leave refused