1988 PLP 1857 (SCMR)
SARWAR — Petitioner Versus KARAMAT HUSSAIN and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1857 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | SARWAR — Petitioner Versus KARAMAT HUSSAIN and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1857 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1857 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1857 (SCMR) (SARWAR — Petitioner Versus KARAMAT HUSSAIN and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Zamir Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 6th July, 1988.
- Sh. Zamir Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 8--11-1987 in Civil Revision No.66/D of 1987).
S.50--Constitution of 'Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3) Petitioner ejected as tenant under respondent in an earlier suit claimed to be co-sharer in disputed land and asserted his right to maintain possession gained again through force--Held, even as co-sharer petitioner could not protect possession forcibly obtained--Respondents being in exclusive possession were entitled to maintain it to the extent of their share against every trespasser, including petitioner who claimed to be a co-sharer--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S.50‑‑Constitution of 'Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3) Petitioner ejected as tenant under respondent in an earlier suit claimed to be co‑sharer in disputed land and asserted his right to maintain possession gained again through force‑‑Held, even as co‑sharer petitioner could not protect possession forcibly obtained‑‑Respondents being in exclusive possession were entitled to maintain it to the extent of their share against every trespasser, including petitioner who claimed to be a co‑sharer‑‑Leave to appeal refused. Sh. Zamir Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 6th July, 1988. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a defendant (in a land suit) whose Civil Revision against the decree passed against him, has been dismissed. Learned counsel states that notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner was ejected as a tenant under the respondents' side in the earlier suit, he had a right to maintain his possession gained again through force, on the ground that he also was a co‑sharer in the disputed land. We do not agree with the learned counsel. Even if it were fact that the petitioner was a co‑sharer, he cannot protect the possession forcibly obtained. If as admitted, in the previous suit the respondents' exclusive possession through tenant was accepted and on that very basis the petitioner was ejected as tenant this would be sufficient to show that the respondents being in exclusive possession were entitled to maintain it to the extent of their share, against every trespasser including the petitioner, who claimed to be a co‑ sharer. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused. M. I. /S‑180/S Petition dismissed.