Suit for recovery of possession
Suit for recovery of possession legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Petitioner/defendant claimed to be owner of suit property on the basis of mutation of sale attested by revenue authorities
Respondents/plaintiffs assailed mutation in question on the plea that their deceased predecessor-in-interest died due to cancer who remained in hospital for treatment during the period when mutation in question was attested
Suit filed by respondents/ plaintiffs was dismissed by Trial Court but Lower Appellate Court decreed the same
Validity
Recording of report in Roznamcha regarding change in rights of a land owner was a first step to trigger process of transfer of rights
Mutation was sanctioned by order of Revenue Officer made in presence of the person whose right was acquired and he had been identified by two respectable persons and an inquiry in such behalf was conducted in common assembly of concerned estate
Entry recorded in Roznamcha was merely a ministerial act performed by Patwari which was incorporated in register of mutations culminating into an order of passing of mutation under S. 42(6) of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967
Act of recording of transaction regarding change of rights by Patwari at the behest of an acquirer in Roznamcha did not constitute an admission of transaction on the part of seller
Petitioner/defendant failed to discharge burden of proof regarding alleged transactions in terms of personal appearance of deceased predecessor-in-interest of respondents/plaintiffs and witnesses before Revenue officer, payment of sale consideration, delivery of possession, subsequent dispossession, recording of transaction in Roznamcha and lawful attestation of mutation in question
High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court
Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.
Respondents / judgment debtors filed objection against execution proceedings on the ground that they had become co-sharers in suit property
Executing Court dismissed the objection but Lower Appellate Court allowed the same
Validity
By leading credible evidence, petitioner / decree holder validly proved her entitlement in respect of property in dispute clearly described in plaint and falling in a particular Khata/Khewat
Petitioner / decree holder proved unlawful occupation thereof by respondents/judgment debtors and such findings were upheld by Lower Appellate Court as well as High Court
Such findings during trial could not be brushed aside in execution proceedings as Executing Court could not go beyond the decree
Petitioner / decree holder could not be compelled to approach relevant forum for partition of joint Khata/Khewaton the basis of changed circumstances
Suit property was purchased by respondents/judgment debtors through registered document and the same would amount to adding to agony of a litigant/decree holder who successfully proved her title against an illegal occupant, i.e., respondents/judgment debtors
Respondents / judgment debtors, after purchase of some share/property through registered sale deed in joint Khata/Khewat, stepped into the shoes of vendor
Even if the vendor was acknowledged as co-sharer in Khata/Khewat, he could not transfer a better title then he himself had
Vendor or his mother were not in possession of suit property when the suit was instituted by petitioner / decree holder or even subsequent thereto
High Court set aside the order passed by Lower Appellate Court and that of Lower Appellate Court was restored
Revision was allowed, in circumstances.
Trial Court dismissed the suit for not seeking recovery of possession under S.9 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, for which limitation was six months only
Validity
Appellants / plaintiffs were not required to seek any declaration as to their title
Claim of appellants / plaintiffs was based on their title to suit plots and not simply prior possession which they had been deprived of
Trial Court erred in concluding that suit filed by appellants/ plaintiffs was a suit under S.9 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, and was governed by Art. 3 of Limitation Act, 1908, where under limitation was six months and the suit was time barred
It was a suit under S.8 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, and applicable period of limitation was 12 years as provided under Art. 142 of Limitation Act, 1908
Suit was maintainable, in circumstances.
Trial Court dismissed the suit declaring the same as not maintainable, however, Appellate Court accepted revision moved by the respondents/plaintiffs
Contention of the petitioners/defendants was that the respondents/plaintiffs, being co-sharers, could only file a suit for partition
Validity
Record revealed that the respondents/plaintiffs, being co-sharers, were in possession of land who were dispossessed by the petitioners/ defendants
High Court observed that the respondents/plaintiffs could file suit for recovery of possession under S.9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 and the Trial Court could adjudicate the dispute between the parties by allowing them to produce oral as well as documentary evidence
No illegality or infirmity having been found in the impugned judgment passed by the appellate Court declaring the suit of the respondents / plaintiffs maintainable
Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances .
Plaintiff claimed that he was owner of the suit land which was given to the defendant by fixing rent for rendering services of Fatiha Khawani and Matamdari till the year 2015
Trial Court and appellate court concurrently dismissed the suit
Validity
Plaintiff had failed to adduce relevant, cogent, reliable and credible evidence before the Trial Court rather irrelevant documents and oral evidence was produced before the Trial Court
Suit for delivery of possession was also time barred as the disputed property was in possession of defendant since 1998 and the suit was filed in the year 2011
Appellate court had not committed any material irregularity and illegality while passing the impugned judgment/decree warranting interference by Chief Court by exercising jurisdiction under S. 115, C.P.C.
Revision petition was dismissed.
Suit for possession can only be filed against the illegal occupant of joint khata by all the co-owners or by one but joining other co-owners as defendants because decree would be for joint possession and not for plaintiff exclusively.
Petitioners assailed order passed by courts below whereby they were directed to restore the possession of suit property to the respondents
Validity
Petitioners, in satisfaction of ex parte judgment and decree, had taken over possession of the property from respondents but subsequently the said decree was set aside by High Court
Court was bound to perform its statutory duty to cause restitution, as such the concurrent orders of the lower fora putting the parties at the place prior to ex parte decree were perfectly passed
Constitutional petition was dismissed with costs.
Defendants did not bring on record any document to substantiate their title to carved out portion except what had emanated from compromise agreement in an earlier suit
Status of predecessor-in-interest of defendant in earlier suit was admitted to be tenant of ground floor of adjoining building
Rights or interests of defendants could not be prejudiced by appointing administrator in respect of carved out portion
High Court appointed official assignee as administrator of the suit property
Application was allowed accordingly.
Acquiescence by silence/conduct
Plaintiff purchased a plot on 23-7-1971 but in demarcation proceedings by revenue authorities it was established that plaintiff had taken possession of some other plot which possession was returned
Plaintiff on 29-1-1991 filed recovery of possession of his plot against defendants which suit was dismissed by Trial Court but Lower Appellate Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff
Validity
Documentary evidence which consisted of demarcation report; copies from record prepared by Patwari; and reports of revenue officials, were not per se admissible
When defendants were not associated at the time of demarcation proceedings and authors of demarcation proceedings and other documents which consisted of reports, were not produced before the Court to prove those documents, such documents had no evidentiary value and could not be read in evidence against defendants
Plaintiff was entitled to possession on the date when sale took place in his favour, therefore, suit was time-barred
High Court set aside judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court and restored that of Trial Court
Second appeal was allowed in circumstances.
Contention of the petitioner/defendant was that even if any encroachment was made by him and being a trespasser he could not be evicted from the suit land except in accordance with law
Validity
Petitioner being a trespasser had not the protection of law as he had violated a law and sought refuge behind another for the protection of his unlawful interest
Trespasser had no legitimate right whatsoever on the land in dispute as he had entered into the land in question without the permission of the relevant authorities and had started using the same for own purpose without any authorization
Petitioner was not entitled to any protection of law
Revision petition was dismissed.
Suit for recovery of possession on the basis of agreement to sell dated 10-7-1971, was decreed by Trial Court but Lower Appellate Court dismissed the suit in favour of plaintiffs
Validity
Predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs instituted suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 10-7-1971 in his life time which was dismissed on the point of limitation and his appeal was also dismissed
Alleged agreement to sell dated 10-7-1971 was rendered incapable of specific performance and lost its all efficacy in the eye of law, if any
Agreement to sell did not have any other right created in favour of vendee except that of seeking relief of specific performance
Plaintiffs were not justified to claim protection of alleged illegal possession taken by them over subject property and that too under the agreement which did not specifically speak of delivery of possession to them and which agreement to sell was not specifically performed by Civil Courts and suit instituted by predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs was dismissed
High Court set aside judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court and restored that of Trial Court
Revision was allowed in circumstances.
Patwari Halqa stated in his cross-examination that 3 marlas land out of 6 marlas of land in dispute was available on the spot as plot while the remaining 3 marlas had been encroached upon by another person in his property which was adjacent to the suit Khasra number
Said person and others had not been impleaded as party in the suit and a decree could not be passed in their absence
Scribe and marginal witnesses of un registered deed relied upon by the defendants had been stated to be dead but none of their legal heirs had been examined by the defendants
Impugned judgments and decrees of both the courts below, having not been based on proper appreciation of evidence were set aside and case was remanded to the Trial Court with the direction that after giving full opportunity to both the parties to produce their fresh pro and contra evidence including the revenue record, decide the case on merit afresh.
Defendants relying upon agreement to sell dated 1-6-1967 asserted that their predecessor-in-interest purchased suit land from predecessors-in-interest of plaintiffs and since then they were owners in possession
Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court, concurrently decreed suit and appeal in favour of plaintiffs
Plea raised by defendants was that presumption of truth was attached to agreement to sell in their possession
Validity
Presumption was attached to thirty years old document, which had come from proper custody
Court had discretion to presume that signature / thumb impression and every other part of such document, which purported to be in hand writing of any person, was in that person's handwriting and it was duly executed by the person by whom it was purported to be executed
Proof of such agreement would be sine qua non for proving ownership of defendants
Though provisions of Art.79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, were not applicable as agreement was allegedly executed on 1-6-1967 but in view of Art. 78 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, document of sale agreement allegedly said to have been signed/thumb impressed by predecessors-in-interest of plaintiffs was to be proved to be their thumb impression
Plaintiffs in their statement had totally denied execution of any deed between predecessors-in-interest of parties and stated that it was fake and bogus document
Defendants were to prove that agreement in question had been thumb impressed by predecessors-in-interest of plaintiffs and further that amount of sale consideration was also paid to them
Except statement of defendant, no evidence was produced to prove the unregistered agreement
Defendants were expected to produce best evidence to prove the agreement but statements made by defence witnesses in their cross-examination falsified contents of alleged agreement
Concurrent findings of both the courts below in respect of factual controversy required no interference by High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction
Revision petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Plea of ex-wife was that house had been given to her in lieu of dower-Proof-Ex-wife deposed that after two years f marriage, she shifted to suit house, which was given to her 16 years ago in lieu of dower
Witness examined by ex-wife neither had participated in her marriage with plaintiff nor had knowledge about fixation of any dower at the time of marriage nor could he state date, month or year in which house was given to her in lieu of dower
Dower of ex-wife was recorded in Nikahnama as 8 Tolas gold and Rs.20, 000
Held: ex-wife had failed to prove her claim
Suit filed by plaintiff was decreed in circumstances.
"Suit for recovery of possession", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124939166
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Suit for recovery of possession"
2023 Y L R 1940
Syed MUHAMMD QASIM and others — Appellants Versus SHAMOON and others — Respondents
Court: Lahore1986 M L D 2853
MUHAMMAD SHAFI and others‑‑Appellants Versus HUSSAIN BAKHSH and others‑‑Respondents
Court: LahoreP L D 1989 Peshawar 89
SIKANDAR and 2 others Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AYUB and 6 others Respondents
Court:P L D 1965 Dacca 269
DEBENDRA MOHAN DAS‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AFAZUDDIN alias AFSARUDDIN
Court:2002 S C M R 1981
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE alias RAFIQUE AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAMEED and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan2006 S C M R 934
HANIFAN BEGUM and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AMEER — Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan2012 Y L R 1671
DEFENCE HOUSING AUTHORITY, LAHORE through Secretary — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AKRAM through Mian Qadeer Ahmed and 4 others — Respondents
Court: LahoreP L D 1995 Karachi 256
K. MARACAIR and 3 other‑‑‑ Plaintiffs , Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR and 2 others‑‑‑ Defendants
Court: __‑‑03.1, R 10(2)‑‑‑Impleading of party ‑‑ ejectment cases were filed by landlord/applicant against tenants, but were dismissed sap to Appellate Court‑‑‑ Later on brother and other relative of original landlord took possession of premises by use of force and tenants/plaintiffs filed suit for 'recovery of possession of suit property and damage against landlord and his relative ‑‑Original landlord who was made defendant in suit for recovery of possession of property and damage, filed written statement in which he had admitted that plaintiffs/tenants were dispossessed forcibly by his brother and other relative, but plaintiffs were not entitled to claim damages from him‑ Original landlord also asserted that defendants who were his brother and relative were in illegal possession of premises and also had trespassed on adjoining premises belonging to him‑‑‑Original landlord who was made defendant in suit filed by plaintiffs/tenants had filed application under 0.1, R.10 (2), C.P.C. to be impleaded as plaintiff in suit, contending that object of such impleading was to avoid multiplicity of suits‑‑‑Original landlord further asserted that tenants were in physical possession of premises owned by him and he was in constructive possession of suit property through plaintiffs/tenants, and by impleading himself as one of plaintiffs in suit, he would be able to seek remedy in suit for protection‑ of his constructive possession‑‑‑Object of 0.1, R.10, C.P.C. was to ensure that all necessary and proper parties were before Court for proper adjudication of dispute raised therein and paramount consideration for impleading proper and necessary parties was to avoid multiplicity of suits, but it would not follow that avoidance of suits was to be only consideration which would weigh with Court while dealing with question of impleading of parties‑‑‑Court while deciding such question would be competent to refuse exercise of jurisdiction in favour of impleading applicant as plaintiff if any factor was found that could lead to inconvenience to any party or anomaly or that could introduce a new cause of action or change or enlarge scope of suit or claim raised ran counter to prayer in plaint‑‑‑ Application filed by defendant/landlord to be impleading as plaintiff was to be decided keeping in view the object of provisions of 0.1, R.10, C.P.C.‑‑‑Object sought to be achieved by impleading as plaintiff was alleged to preserve constructive possession of defendant but in circumstances, of case for achieving that result, his impleading as plaintiff was not necessary‑‑ Plaintiffs /tentans in their plaint had claimed to have been inducted as tenant by defendant/landlord and unlawfully dispossession by other two defendants‑‑ If plaintiffs succeeded in establishing their case, object of defendant/landlord would be achieved as necessary corollary because in case Court would find plaintiffs to be tenants of said defendant, it would follow logically that said defendant was in constructive possession of suit property through his tenants‑‑‑Defendant in suit was not bound to oppose plaintiff or join all issues‑‑No inconvenience was thus likely to be caused if defendant was not impleaded as one of plaintiffs in suit. p. 260 A & B1994 C L C 1423
ABDUL RAHIM and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD KHALID, ‑‑‑ Respondent
Court: Lahore1989SCMR445
WAHEED KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. NAWAB BIBI‑‑Respondent
Court: High Court