2002 PLP 1059 (MLD)
SALEHOON‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SULTAN AHMAD‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1059 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Syed Jamshed Ali, J |
| Parties | SALEHOON‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SULTAN AHMAD‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1059 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1059 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Syed Jamshed Ali, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1059 (MLD) (SALEHOON‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SULTAN AHMAD‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zahid Hussain Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 42‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115 ‑‑‑ Suit for declaration‑‑‑Plaintiff claimed that suit area was "Ghair Mumkin Chapper" and was under use of the residents of village‑‑‑Suit was decreed by Trial Court‑‑‑Defendant made statement before Appellate Court to the effect that he had nothing to do with suit‑land and that he was neither in possession thereof nor he had any intention to occupy the same‑‑‑Appeal against judgment of Trial Court was dismissed by Appellate Court on the basis of said statement of the defendant‑‑ Defendant having given up all his claim in respect of land in dispute, no case was made out for interference of High Court in revision.
Judgment & Decree
Zahid Hussain Khan for Petitioner. Sultan Ahmad deceased, now represented by the respondents, filed a suit claiming a declaration that Khasra No.3255/1 measuring 7 Kanals, 18 Marlas was "Ghair Mumkin Chapper" was under the use of the residents of the village and the entries of Jamabandi showing Khasra No.9935/3274 and 9936/3274 measuring 3 Kanals as "Shamlat Deh" were factually wrong and that the aforesaid area of 3 Kanals was also 'Ghair Mumkin Chapper'.
2. The suit was tried and vide judgment dated 23‑11‑1995 it was' P' decreed in terms that the land measuring 7 Kanals, 18 Marlas is reserved for the common use of the ' Bashindgan Deh' and should be used as such commonly and the entries made in the Revenue Record are liable to correction. It was further directed, that the petitioner should vacate the suit land within 90 days after removing the superstructure raised on the suit‑land.
3. The judgment and decree, dated 23‑11‑1995 was assailed by the petitioner in an appeal. On 6‑11‑2000, the petitioner and his learned counsel made a statement before the learned First Appellate Court that the petitioner had nothing to do with Khasra No.3255/1 measuring 7 Kanals, 18 Marlas and that he was not in possession thereof nor he had any intention to occupy Khasra No.3255/1. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, the appeal was dismissed.
4. The learned counsel contends that the petitioner had conceded to the claim of the respondent to the extent of the land of the 'Chapper' but his entire appeal was dismissed without examining his grievance against that part of the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court which directed the petitioner to vacate the land and remove the construction.
5. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been considered. The decree granted to the respondent is confined to land measuring 7 Kanals, 18 Marlas under the 'Chapper'. It may be noted that according to Exh.P.3, Jamabandi for the year 1976‑77 and D. 1 Jamabandi for the year 1988‑89, 'Chapper' has been recorded in Khasra No.3255/1 on an area measuring 7 Kanals, 18 Marlas. The petitioner had given up all his claims in respect of the land under the 'Chapper'.
6. No ground is made out for interference. This revision petition is therefore, dismissed. H.B.T./S‑400/L Revision dismissed.