1990 PLP 1706 (SCMR)
HABIB‑UR‑REHMAN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ZIARAT GUL and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1706 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, .J |
| Parties | HABIB‑UR‑REHMAN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ZIARAT GUL and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1706 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1706 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, .J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1706 (SCMR) (HABIB‑UR‑REHMAN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ZIARAT GUL and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mian Shakirullah Jan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th March, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order dated 11‑5‑1988 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, in Civil Revision No.539 of 1981). (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 42‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Plaintiff's suit for declaration and permanent injunction, claiming ownership of land in question was Court‑‑‑Courts below having considered merits of case, came to conclusion that plaintiffs were tenants‑‑‑Evidence on record established that plaintiffs were tenants‑at‑will‑‑‑Entries in Revenue Record were proper and plaintiff had failed to prove their title‑‑‑Plaintiffs have not been able to show that findings of Courts below were against the record‑‑‑Leave to appeal refused in circumstances. (b) Adverse possession‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Column in Revenue Record regarding status must prevail over any other entry‑‑‑No evidence on record to substantiate plaintiffs' plea of adverse possession‑‑‑Plaintiffs were recorded as tenant‑at‑will, in revenue record prepared in 1947‑48‑‑‑Column in Revenue Record regarding status of plaintiffs was quite clear wherein they were recorded as tenants‑at‑will‑‑‑Entry in column of rent specified that plaintiffs were not paying rent‑‑‑All the Courts below had considered that entry regarding status of a person must prevail over any other entry‑‑‑Plaintiffs had not led any evidence to displace finding of fact recorded by Courts of competent jurisdiction‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL OADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the High Court dated 11‑5‑1988.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioners brought a suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding disputed property in the Court of Civil Judge, Nowshera. The suit was contested by the respondent. Various issues were framed. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. On appeal, the case was remanded for framing of proper issues. The trial Court again dismissed the suit. The appeal of the petitioners was also dismissed. The civil revision filed in the High Court was also dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is sufficient evidence on record to establish that the petitioners were the owner of the disputed property. The entries in the Revenue Record as Ghair Dakhilkar mean a person who is in possession as the owner.
4. The Courts below have considered merits of the case and came to the conclusion that the petitioners' claim had no force. It has been held that the petitioners are tenants. The evidence on record establishes this fact that the petitioners are tenant‑at‑will. The entries in the Revenue Record are proper and the petitioners have failed to prove their title. The learned High Court has held that:‑‑ "in respect of old Khasra Nos. 857 and 975, in which according to the Jamabandi of 1920‑21 (Exh.P.W.2/1) available on the record the father of the plaintiffs was one of the co‑sharers, Patwari Halqa Sardar Ghulam (examined in this Court) has stated that negligible area (min Khafeef) out of these two Khasra numbers has been included in Khasra No.856 in suit. Such negligible inclusion of `min KhafeeP area has to be ignored and could not become the basis of the right claimed by the petitioners plaintiffs that they were owners of 5 Kanals 5 Marlas of land out of the disputed Khasra."
5. The record fully supports the above observations. The learned counsel has not been able to show from the record that these observations are against the record.
6. The next contention of the learned counsel is if their title has not been established they are in possession of the disputed land since long, therefore, their adverse possession has been proved. There is no evidence to substantiate this contention. The petitioners have absolutely failed to prove that they are in adverse possession of the property in dispute. The petitioners were recorded as tenants‑at‑will in the Revenue Record prepared in 1947‑48.1t has been contended that entry in the column of `rent' is that they were not paying rent. The column regarding the status of the petitioners is quite clear wherein they are recorded as tenants‑at‑will. All the Courts below have considered that this entry must prevail over any other entry and the petitioners have not led any evidence to displace the finding of fact recorded by the Courts of the competent jurisdiction. This petition I has no force. Leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed. A.A./H‑107/S Leave refused.