1983 PLP 1057 (SCMR)
ABDULLAH AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus TAJ MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1983 PLP 1057 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | ABDULLAH AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus TAJ MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 1057 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 1057 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 1057 (SCMR) (ABDULLAH AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus TAJ MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. M. Pirzada, Advocate Supreme Court and Rashid Akhtar Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 16th August, 1983.
- M. M. Pirzada, Advocate Supreme Court and Rashid Akhtar Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of Baluchistan High Court, dated 13-9-1982 in Civil Revision No. 56 of 1980). --Art. 185(3)-Petition for leave to appeal barred by 71 days-Supreme Court allowed petitioner's counsel to formulate his contentions and address Court on merits. --Art. 185 (3)-Dispute as to ownership of landed property-Both trial Court and High Court finding that petitioner never had any subsisting right in property-Contention that lower Courts failed to appreciate that land was an ancestral property and was not parti tioned and, therefore, suit was not barred by time that possession of one co-sharer is possession of other co-sharer and principle of adverse possession not applicable in case, held, not tenable-Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.‑Leave is sought to appeal against the judg ment and decree of the Baluchistan High Court, Quetta passed in Civil Revision No. 56 of 1980 on the 13th September, 1982. The petition is barred by 71 days but we allowed the petitioners' counsel to formulate his con tentions and address the Court on merits.
2. According to the petitioners' case a suit was filed by them for pos session of 1/2 share of land in dispute inter alia on the ground that the father of the plaintiffs/petitioners and father of the defendants/respondents wire real brothers and as such the petitioners were entitled to 1/2 share of the joint property left by their fathers. The suit was resisted by the res pondents on the ground that the suit land belonged exclusively to their father Isa Khan who had given the same in Haqq a Mehar (dower) to their mother in the presence of Chakkar father of the plaintiff's/petitioners. Since the land was in possession of the respondents during the lifetime of Chakkar and he cover raised any objection or brought out a suit against Isa Khan or his wife for possession. 1sa .Khan died, according to the evidence 25 years ago. Before his death he had sold the same land to one Peero but this was challenged by a suit brought by the mother of the respondents which was decreed in her favour as the suit‑ land was held to be her property. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, challenged this finding and contended that the lower Courts have failed to appreciate that the land in question was an ancestral property and was not partitioned and, therefore, the suit was not barred by time that the possession of one co‑sharer is the possession of other co‑sharers and the principle of adverse possession would not apply in the present case.
3. We have examined the points raised by the learned counsel and find that the facts brought on the record do not support the petitioner's case. The Court of Qazi at Turbat (Baluchistan) had gone into the questions and bad found that the petitioners never had any subsisting right in the property in question. The same is the finding of the learned High Court Judge. The contentions raised by the learned counsel are not ten able. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed, M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.