1988 PLP 1979 (SCMR)
GHAUNS BAKHSH and others — Petitioners Versus BUDHA and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1979 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | GHAUNS BAKHSH and others — Petitioners Versus BUDHA and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1979 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1979 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1979 (SCMR) (GHAUNS BAKHSH and others — Petitioners Versus BUDHA and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 3rd August, 1988.
- Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 7-4-1982 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in R.S.A. No.72 of 1965-RWP).
Art.185(3)--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 5.100--Leave to appeal, grant of--Appreciation of evidence--Dismissal of declaratory suit upheld in Regular Second Appeal--Decision impugned--Findings of fact rendered by Courts below not suffering from any infirmity- Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the plaintiffs' side in a declaratory suit against the dismissal of their regular second appeal by the High Court. The learned counsel states that the petitioners' claim to the ownership to the land in dispute could have been accepted both on the ground that they were shown in the Revenue record as owners and also on the ground of adverse possession. According to the facts stated by the learned counsel, it was a commonly owned large piece of land out of which the petitioners had made the "Nautor" as a result of which although in the column of ownership, the petitioners were not shown as exclusive owners, in the Legan column the entry in their favour continued for a long time, namely "Bila Legan Batassawar Malkiat" He further stated that this entry continued for nearly 20 years. Then the change was made as a result of which the petitioners were shown as tenants‑at‑will. After hearing the learned counsel, we are satisfied that the findings of fact rendered by all the learned Courts below against the petitioners did not suffer from any infirmity. In the circumstances of the case and in the light of the material before the learned Courts below, the entry in the "Lagan" column relied by the learned counsel even if factually correct, could not have been preferred and acted upon in face of the other entries in the Revenue record. Regarding adverse possession also, the petitioners could not have been granted a decree in case of the aforestated position as tenants through adverse possession. And if it was a case of co‑sharership, they could not have claimed adverse possession against the other co‑sharers. Looked at from whatever angle, the petitioners have no case to succeed. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. M.I./G‑132/S Petition dismissed.