2003 PLP 1188 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAKEEM — Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1188 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Sardar Muhammad Raza, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAKEEM — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1188 (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 2003 PLP 1188 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Sardar Muhammad Raza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1188 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAKEEM — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Inayat Ullah, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 18th June, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 16-6-1999 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No. 1016 of 1995).
S. 8
Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.54
Qanun-e- Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 117 & 120
Suit for possession of immovable property
Plaintiff claimed to be the owner of suit property and sought recovery of possession of the same
Defendant admitted initial title of the plaintiff but denied delivery of possession of suit property on the ground that the plaintiff had sold the property in favour of third person
Trial Court dismissed the suit but Appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit
Judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court was maintained by High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction
When the initial title of plaintiff was admitted, sale in favour of the third person was not proved and the nature of possession of defendant was not clarified
Two Courts below had rightly granted the decree in favour of the plaintiff
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA, J.
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 16-6-1999 passed in Civil Revision No. 1016 of 1995 by an Hon'ble Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court, whereby the decree granted in favour of Abdul Hakeem respondent by the First Appellate Court was maintained.
2. Abdul Hakeem respondent filed a suit against Muhammad Sharif petitioner for possession of the disputed house. Muhammad Sharif defended the suit on the' ground that though the house was owned by Abdul Hakeem yet it was sold by him in favour of one Muhammad Sadiq. The suit after trial being dismissed by the trial Court was decreed in appeal and the same was maintained by the High Court through the impugned judgment.
3. By taking the plea that Abdul Hakeem had already sold the house to one Muhammad Sadiq the title of Abdul Hakeem is admitted. Once the ownership of Abdul Hakeem is admitted, the sale in favour of Muhammad Sadiq remained to be proved by the defendant. Defendant Muhammad Sharif has miserably failed to prove the sale by Abdul Hakeem in favour of Muhammad Sadiq, so much so that he has not even produced Muhammad Sadiq as his witness. Muhammad Sadiq, on his part, has never come forward to claim title in any independent proceedings. The defendant has failed to mention as to who inducted him in the suit property, as to what is the nature of his possession and whether he is paying any rent to any person. This is particularly relevant when. he does not claim the title himself.
4. In the circumstances, when the initial title of Abdul Hakeem is admitted, sale in favour of Muhammad Sadiq is not proved and the nature of possession of Muhammad Sharif is not clarified, the two Courts below have rightly granted the decree in favour of Abdul Hakeem respondent. There being no merit in the petition, it is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. M. H./M-527/S Petition dismissed.