Constructive possession
Constructive possession legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Every legal heir is deemed to be in constructive possession in respect of an inheritable estate.
Donor and donee signed the gift deed in presence of witnesses and all the three essentials of gift were complied with in accordance with law
Neither any land revenue receipt nor corroborative evidence was produced by the parties to prove possession on the suit land
Taking of possession of the subject-matter of gift by the donee either actually or constructively was necessary to complete the same
Registered gift deed and mutation of suit land existed in the name of donee in the revenue record
Constructive possession of donee over the gifted property was proved in circumstances
No illegal assumption or non-exercise or irregular exercise of jurisdiction by the courts below had been pointed out
Revision was dismissed in circumstances.
"Constructive possession", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124945573
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Constructive possession"
2016 S C M R 800
Messrs WORLD TRANS LOGISTICS and others — Petitioners Versus SILK BANK LIMITED and others — Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan1992 M L D 2127
MUHAMMAD YAOUB and 8 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR and 11 others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Azad J & KP L D 1978 Lahore 1146
BASHIR AHMAD Etc.-Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE ETc.-Respondents
Court:P 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 & B1993 P Cr
ARSHAD NADIM — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Court: Karachi2016 C L D 895
Messrs WORLD TRANS LOGISTICS and others — Petitioners Versus SILK BANK LIMITED and others — Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of PakistanP L D 1965 (W
MUHAMMAD SHARIF‑Petitioner Versus Mst. NATHO AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
Court: High Court1984 C L C 1399
FATEH MUHAMMAD ‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
Court: Lahore1991 P Cr
STATE through Advocate-General N.-W.F.P., Peshawar — Appellant Versus SAIDUL HAQ — Accused/Respondent
Court: PeshawarP L D 1966 Dacca 217
ABDUL MALEQUE LASKAR‑Petitioner Versus Begum TAYABUNNESSA AND OTHERS‑Opposite‑Parties
Court: