1990 PLP 912 (SCMR)
AKBAR ALI and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GHULAM HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 912 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | AKBAR ALI and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GHULAM HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 912 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 912 (SCMR)?
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: 1990 PLP 912 (SCMR) (AKBAR ALI and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GHULAM HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Q. M. Salim, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on -Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 22nd October, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 25‑3‑1986 of the Lahore High Court in C.R. No. 19‑D of 1986). ‑‑‑S. 91‑‑-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑ Petitioners in their suit claimed to be owners of land in dispute on ground that initially they were mortgagees of that land but due to non redemption by respondents for more than sixty years they had become its owners‑‑‑Petitioners failed to produce on record any evidence to show that they were ever mortgagees in land in dispute‑‑‑Suit of petitioners, held was rightly dismissed by Courts below.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 91‑‑-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑ Petitioners in their suit claimed to be owners of land in dispute on ground that initially they were mortgagees of that land but due to non redemption by respondents for more than sixty years they had become its owners‑‑‑Petitioners failed to produce on record any evidence to show that they were ever mortgagees in land in dispute‑‑‑Suit of petitioners, held was rightly dismissed by Courts below. Q. M. Salim, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on -Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 22nd October, 1989. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioners filed a suit for a declaration that they were owners of about 32 kanals of land situate in village Bakhianwala in Tehsil Daska of Sialkot District. They claimed that initially they were mortgagees in the said land but as the mortgage had not been redeemed for more than sixty years they had become the owners thereof. The trial Court dismissed the suit after holding that there was no evidence on the record to show that the land in dispute was the same which had been mortgaged with them. Its finding in this regard was confirmed by the Additional District Judge, Sialkot. Before the High Court, the learned counsel appearing on their behalf conceded that he could not establish that the land in dispute was the same as had been mortgaged with them. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed their revision petition. The petitioners seek leave to appeal from this Court.
2. As noticed earlier, the claim of the petitioners to the land in dispute is based on the assertion that it was first mortgaged with them and as the mortgage had not been redeemed within the specified period, they had become owners thereof. As the petitioners had not been able to establish that they were ever mortgagees in the land in dispute, the basis of their claim thereto disappeared. In view of this position, their suit was rightly dismissed. This petition is without any merit. Leave is refused, H.B.T./A‑655/S Leave refused.