Ancestral property

2023 CLC 1157 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Inheritance mutationsFraud and misrepresentationAncestral propertyEntitlement of daughter

Plaintiffs (legal heirs of daughter of predecessor-in-interest of parties) claimed of having no knowledge of inheritance mutations

Held, that averments in the plaint were not seriously denied by the petitioners/defendants

No one could be deprived of his/her ancestral property on the basis of fraud merely on account of limitation

Even one of the respondents/defendants deposed that plaintiffs initially had no knowledge of inheritance mutations

Limitation could not be pleaded as hurdle in way of respondents/plaintiffs, thus the question of limitation was rightly decided by both the Courts below

Civil revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

2015 MLD 171 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 17Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 117Ejectment petitionMaintainabilityDenial of relationship of landlord and tenant by tenantBurden of proofDefault in payment of rentAncestral propertyRent Controller, jurisdiction ofPayment of rentScope

Contention of landlord was that tenants had committed default in payment of rent whereas tenants had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties

Ejectment petition was accepted by the Rent Controller

Validity

Alleged rented premises was occupied by the tenants in lieu of vacating ancestral property as co-sharer and same was not taken into possession as tenant

No evidence to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant was discussed in the impugned order

Burden of proof to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant was on the landlord

Issue with regard to relationship of landlord and tenant was framed without placing/noting burden of proof which was improper exercise of jurisdiction

Findings that tenants could not prove the relationship of landlord and tenant were against the principle of law of evidence and were not sustainable in the eye of law

Relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties

Landlord had failed to prove that tenants paid rent as a consideration for possession or occupation of the premises

Present application for eviction was not maintainable and Rent Controller had no jurisdiction in the matter

Eviction could not be sought before the Rent Controller without establishing the relationship of landlord and tenant

Payment of rent was sine qua non for the relationship of landlord and tenant

Findings recorded by the Rent Controller were reversed and impugned order was set aside

Eviction petition filed by the landlord was dismissed

Appeal was accepted in circumstances.