1996 PLP 1719 (SCMR)
SOHARA and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1996 PLP 1719 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Manzoor Hussain Sial, |
| Parties | SOHARA and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 1719 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 1719 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Manzoor Hussain Sial,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 1719 (SCMR) (SOHARA and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Abdul Majeed, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Rana Abdul Majeed, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 25‑1‑1994 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in RSA No.462/1973). ‑‑‑‑Arts. 142 & 144‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Suit for possession of land on basis of title‑‑‑Defendants claimed adverse possession by prescription‑‑‑Trial Court decreed plaintiff's suit, but Appellate Court and High Court dismissed plaintiff's suit and accepted defendant's plea of adverse possession through prescription‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Defendants and their predecessor were although entered as tenants of land in question yet relevant entry also indicated that they were not paying any rent‑‑‑Some of the entries were to the effect that defendants were occupying land in question by dint of force‑‑ Revenue record indicated that defendants were in possession of land in question since 1939‑‑‑Plaintiff had nowhere pleaded that he had handed over possession to defendants as tenants‑‑‑Entries in Revenue Record thus, belied plaintiff's averment that defendants forcibly occupied said land about one year before filing of suit‑‑‑Mention of word "tenant" in Revenue Record was of no consequence and would not affect defendant's right to claim ownership of land through prescription‑‑‑High Court was thus, correct in affirming finding of Appellate Court that defendants had become owners of land in question, through adverse possession‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD ILYAS, J.
This petition of special leave to appeal arises out of a suit relating a piece of land. The suit was filed by one Sohara against Muhammad Nawaz and others.
2. Relief claimed by Sohara in the suit was possession of the suit land alleging that he was owner thereof' but the same had been forcibly occupied by the defendants. The defendants resisted the suit contending that they were in adverse possession of the disputed land for more than 12 years and had thus become its owners. The plaintiff's plea found favour with the Civil Judge, Bhakkar, District Mianwali and he decreed the suit. On appeal having been filed by the defendants, the District Judge, Mianwali, accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and dismissed the suit. The appellate judgment and decree were challenged before the Lahore High Court by means of a civil revision which was dismissed by Mr. Justice Munir A. Sheikh. The present petition has been made to seek special leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Judge in Chamber.
3. The said Sohara (plaintiff) has since died and is represented by Mst. Sahai etc., who are petitioners in the instant petition. Some of the defendants have also expired and are represented by their legal heir. The surviving defendants and the legal representatives of the deceased defendants are respondents herein.
4. It was urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that in the revenue record, the respondents were entered as tenants and, therefore, they could not become owners thereof through prescription.
5. We have carefully gone through the record before us and find that although in the revenue papers, the respondents and their predecessors-in -interest are entered as tenants, yet the relevant entry also indicates they were not paying any rent. In Urdu, the entry reads as follows:-- Some of the entries are to the effect that the respondents are occupying the disputed land like owners by dint of force. Urdu version of these entries is as under: -- Also, as pointed out by the learned Single Judge, according to the revenue record, the respondents are in possession of the disputed land since 1939. This belied the plaintiff's averment that the defendants forcibly occupied the said land about 1 year before (he filing of the suit. Further, it was not the case of the plaintiff that he had handed over possession of the disputed lands to the defendants as tenants. In the circumstances, the mention of the word "tenant" is .of no consequence and does not affect the defendant's right to claim ownership of the land through prescription. Keeping all this in view, learned Judge in Chamber was justified in affirming the finding of the learned District Judge that the defendants had become owners of the disputed land through adverse possession.
6. Upshot of above discussion is that it is not a fit case for grant of special leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. A.A/S-1009/S Petition dismissed.