1976 PLP 333 (SCMR)

ANWARUL HAQ, J.‑‑The dispute in this case concerns shop bearing No. C. 210 situate in a place called Tall in the Kohat District. It was apparently an evacuee building site at one stage and was transferred to respondent No. 4, Wahabuddin on 9‑6‑

65. Thereafter, it was purchased by respondent Ajab Khan under a registered sale deed executed on the 30th of October 1972 and registered on the 7th of November 1972. On 1‑11-1973, respondent Ajab Khan filed a suit for the possession of this shop, alleging that he had been wrongly dispossessed there from by the present petitioner Aziz Khan in execution of a warrant of possession obtained by him from the Rent Controller in respect of the adjoining shop bearing No. C‑209 which was at that tine occupied by the plaintiff's son Ghafoor Khan (respondent No. 2). The suit was resisted by the petitioner mainly on the ground that he had matured his title to this property through adverse possession for over twelve years, He also contended that he bad made certain improvements in this property. The pleas raised by the petitioner were negatived by the trial Court by its judgment dated the 19th of March 1974, and the respondent's suit was decreed. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Kohat, on 3‑7‑74, and his revision petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court by his judgment dated the 31st of March 1974. Leave to appeal is sought on the ground that the trial Court had erred in not framing a specific issue on the question whether the plaintiff- respondent had been wrongfully dispossessed by the petitioner its the course of the execution of a warrant of possession relating to the adjoining shop C

209. He contends that without this specific issue having been framed the controversy between the parties could not be resolved and accordingly the decree granted in favour of the respondent, Ajab Khan, blood vitiated. There is obviously no merit in these submission. The title of the, plaintiff to the shop in dispute is amply proved by the documents issued by the Settlement authorities in favour of Wahabuddinr and the registered tale deed executed by him in favour of the plaintiff. There could be no question of the present petitioner having acquired any prescriptive title by adverse possession, as the property was evacuee property and time could not run against the Custodian of Evacuee Property by virtue of the provisions contained in the evacuee laws. There was no rebuttal of the plaintiff's contention that he had been wrongfully dispossessed under the colour of an warrant of possession. obtained by the petitioner to respect of the adjoining shop C‑

209. As a result, we see no merit in this petition and hereby dismiss the same. Petition dismissed.