Lawful possession

2012 PLD 189 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss. 2(c), 2(d), 3, 4 & 7"Lawful possession"ProofScope"Owner"ProofScopeProperty was recorded in the name of the deceased-husband of the complainantWhether complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was maintainable under such circumstancesWatchman residing in the property on behalf of the complainantWhether such possession of watchman qualified as possession by the complainantLodging of F.I.R. not a bar to availing remedy under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 and vice versaTrial Court had allowed the application of the complainant under S.7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005

Contentions of the accused persons (petitioners) were that documents referred to and relied upon by the complainant were fake and fabricated; that the complainant was neither occupier nor recorded owner of the property in question, and the complainant not being in possession of the property had no legal status to maintain the direct complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005

Validity

For the purpose of proving lawful possession, it was incumbent upon the person claiming such possession to produce certain documents or evidence to prove his possession as lawful possession over the property

Complainant had produced ownership documents of the property, while the accused persons did not produce any evidence or documents to show that they were either lawful owners or occupiers of the property

Although complainant was not the recorded owner of the property, which stood recorded in the name of her deceased-husband but a Muslim's estate vested immediately in his or her heirs after his/her death and the devolution of property took place immediately through inheritance without any intervention

Although complainant was not in actual and physical possession of the property at the time of the alleged dispossession but her watchmen was residing therein along with his family members, who were forcibly dispossessed by the accused persons

Possession of the complainant could not be denied in such circumstances

Complainant being the owner and occupier of the property had the legal status to maintain the direct complaint

Lodging of F.I.R. by the wife of the watchman would not act as a bar to avail remedy under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, nor availing of remedy under the said Act would act as a bar from initiating proceedings under any other law

Trial Court had given valid and lawful reasons while exercising its jurisdiction in the matter

Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.