1994 PLP 1780 (SCMR)
HADAYAT HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus HAQNAWAZ ‑‑‑ Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1780 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan. |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Wali Muhammad Khan, J |
| Parties | HADAYAT HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus HAQNAWAZ ‑‑‑ Respondent |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1780 (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 1994 PLP 1780 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Wali Muhammad Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1780 (SCMR) (HADAYAT HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus HAQNAWAZ ‑‑‑ Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Mukhtar Hussain Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 7th October, 1992.
- We have heard Malik Mukhtar Hussain Awan, Advocate, for the petitioner and have perused the record of the case. It has concurrently been held as a fact by the lower three forums that the petitioner is a9t in possession of Khasra No. 194. He admits in his plaint that the defendant/respondent had purchased 1 Kanal 4 Marlas from one of the co‑sharers. The documentary evidence placed on the record proves the joint ownership of the parties alongwith others and, as such, both have right to possession of their respective ownership. However, the plaintiff/petitioner has not been able to establish his exclusive possession over the entire Khasra No. 194 therefore his prayer for restraining the defendant/respondent from interfering in his alleged possession was rightly declined by the three forums below.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order dated 2‑6‑1992 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench. Rawaipindi passed in C.R. No. 209 of 1992). ‑‑‑‑S. 54‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Suit for. perpetual injunction for protection of possession‑‑‑Concurrent finding. of fact of three Courts below that plaintiff, a co‑sharer being not in exclusive possession of land in question, was not entitled to perpetual injunction‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Plaintiff had admitted in his plaint that defendant had purchased land in question from one of the co‑sharers‑‑‑Documentary evidence placed on record proved joint ownership of parties alongwith others, and, thus, both would have right to possession of their respective ownership‑‑‑Plaintiff's suit for perpetual injunction restraining defendant from interfering in his alleged possession was rightly dismissed by three Courts below‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.‑‑‑Hadayat Hussain, petitioner herein, has challenged the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 2‑6‑1992 whereby his revision petition against the judgment of the Civil Judge dated 28‑2‑1991 dismissing his suit for perpetual injunction and that of the appellate Court dated 7‑2‑1992 dismissing his appeal against it, was dismissed in limine. The facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for the issuance of perpetual injunction against Haq Nawaz respondent claiming that he was in possession of land measuring 5 Kanals comprising Khasra No. 194 situated in the area of Village Chakara, Tehsil and District Rawalpindi and that the defendant/respondent having purchased a fraction of it from Khattar Khan, co‑sharer, is bent upon dispossessing him without recourse to his remedy for partition. The respondent contested the suit and in his written statement denied the possession of the plaintiff/petitioner over the suit land and asserted his own possession. Necessary issues in the case were framed, evidence led pro and contra thereon recorded and the learned Civil Judge on the appraisal of the evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiff/petitioner had miserably failed to establish his exclusive possession over the disputed Khasra numbers and, under the law, had no right to the issuance of perpetual injunction. This finding has been concurred by the appellate as well as the revisional Court. We have heard Malik Mukhtar Hussain Awan, Advocate, for the petitioner and have perused the record of the case. It has concurrently been held as a fact by the lower three forums that the petitioner is a9t in possession of Khasra No.
194. He admits in his plaint that the defendant/respondent had purchased 1 Kanal 4 Marlas from one of the co‑sharers. The documentary evidence placed on the record proves the joint ownership of the parties alongwith others and, as such, both have right to possession of their respective ownership. However, the plaintiff/petitioner has not been able to establish his exclusive possession over the entire Khasra No. 194 therefore his prayer for restraining the defendant/respondent from interfering in his alleged possession was rightly declined by the three forums below. Finding no merit in the instant petition, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed. A.A./H‑184/S Leave refused.