1991 PLP 2010 (SCMR)
MUNIR AHMAD and others — Petitioners Versus MULLA BAZ MUHAMMAD and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 2010 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, C.J. and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, JJ |
| Parties | MUNIR AHMAD and others — Petitioners Versus MULLA BAZ MUHAMMAD and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 2010 (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 1991 PLP 2010 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, C.J. 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 2010 (SCMR) (MUNIR AHMAD and others — Petitioners Versus MULLA BAZ MUHAMMAD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja M. Afsar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- M. Riaz Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 4th June, 1991.
- Raja M. Afsar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- M. Riaz Ahmed, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the High Court of Balochistan dated 30-7-1990 in R.F.A. No.15 of 1990).
S. 42
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Suit for declaration of ownership decreed by trial Court but finding reversed by High Court resulting in dismissal of suit
Lave to appeal was granted to consider whether in view of concurrent findings of two Courts about possession of plaintiffs, they were not entitled to the claim to the suit land.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment of the High Court dated 30‑7‑1990.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioners filed a suit for declaration and injunction in the Civil Court on the allegation that about 57 years back the suit land had been purchased by their predecessor‑in‑interest and obtained possession thereof, and that the respondents were interfering with their peaceful possession. The suit was contested. The trial Court decreed the suit and restrained the respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioners. This order was challenged by the respondents in appeal before the High Court. The appeal was accepted and the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are concurrent findings by the two Courts that the petitioners are in possession of the suit land as such the petitioners have been able to establish their case. Exh.P.l is a document which was executed about 57 years back but that document has been ignored by the High Court. The High Court has observed "that apparently the plaintiffs have not been able to establish the purchase of the suit land. However, an oral version of the witnesses coupled with entries in Khasra Girdawari certainly proves the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land."
4. Leave to appeal is granted to consider whether in view of concurrent findings of the two Courts about the possession of the petitioners, they are not entitled to the claim to the suit land.
5. Security Rs.5,
000. The stay with regard to possession shall continue. AA./M‑1523/S Leave granted.