2004 PLP 826 (SCMR)
SHER MUHAMMAD and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD KHALID and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 826 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramday, JJ |
| Parties | SHER MUHAMMAD and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD KHALID and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 826 (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 2004 PLP 826 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramday, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 826 (SCMR) (SHER MUHAMMAD and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD KHALID and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zahid Hussain Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abul Aasim Jafari Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Abdul Aziz Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th June, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 6‑7‑1999 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No. 1100 of 1983). ‑‑‑‑S.42‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Declaration of title‑‑‑ Proof ‑‑‑Oral evidence, preferring over documentary evidence‑‑‑ Concurrent findings of facts by the Courts below‑‑‑Plaintiff claimed to be owner in possession of the suit‑land on the basis of adverse possession and disputed the entries in Revenue Record being contrary and incorrect‑‑‑Suit was decreed by the Trial Court but Appellate Court allowed the appeal and the suit was dismissed‑‑‑Judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court was maintained by High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction‑‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Concurrent findings of the two Courts below were based on the documentary evidence available on record‑‑‑Both the Courts had rightly held that oral evidence which was contrary to the documentary evidence could not be given preference over the documentary evidence‑‑‑Only two entries in Revenue Record which were in favour of the plaintiff were removed by the Revenue Authorities‑‑‑Concurrent conclusion reached and the reasons offered by High Court and Lower Appellate Court were neither based on misreading nor non‑reading of evidence‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
KHALIL‑UR‑REHMAN RAMDAY, J.‑Sher Muhammad, petitioner before us filed a suit against the present respondents in the Court of a learned Civil Judge at Joharabad seeking a declaration that he was in possession of 137 Kanals and 12 Marlas of land; that his possession was in the capacity of an owner for the last 26 years, being a possession open and adverse to the actual owners; that he had acquired prescriptive rights over the property in question; that the entries in the Revenue Record to be contrary were incorrect and ithad consequently been prayed that the defendants (respondents before us) be permanently restrained from interfering in the possession of the petitioner‑plaintiff over the suit‑land and also from claiming ownership of the same.
2. Through his judgment dated 3‑11‑1982, the learned trial Judge decreed the suit which judgment and decree was however, reversed by the learned District Judge of Khushab, on appeal, through his judgment dated 8‑6‑1983 as a result of which the suit of Sher Muhammad, petitioner was dismissed with costs. He questioned the said appellate judgment before the Lahore High Court through Civil Revision No. 1100 of 1983 which petition was dismissed by the Honourable High Court through a judgment dated 6‑7‑1999. .
3. Hence this petition.
4. We have examined the material available on record in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and find that no exception could be taken to the revisional and the appellate judgments impugned before us.
5. The concurrent findings of the said learned Courts are based on the overwhelming documentary evidence available on record. Both the Courts were one in holding, and rightly so, that oral evidence which was contrary to the documentary evidence could not be given preference over the said documentary evidence. The only two entries i.e. relating to Rabi 1973 and Kharif 1973 which stood in favour of the petitioner‑plaintiff were directed to be removed by the Collector of the District on an appeal filed before him. He had further ordered that the entries as they existed in Rabi 1972 should be restored. This order of the Collector was maintained in the second appeal filed by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner of Sargodha who had dismissed the said appeal through an order dated .13‑6‑1979. In this view of the matter, the Honourable High Court and the learned Appellate Court were justified in holding that the oral evidence offered by the petitioner‑plaintiff which was not supported by the strong documentary evidence available on record, could not be given any credit. The concurrent conclusions reached and the reasons offered therefore could not be said to be based either on misreading or non‑reading of evidence.
6. Consequently, we find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. Leave refused. M.H./S‑19/S Petition dismissed.