Home Maxims & Terms Pari Delicto Potior Est Conditio Possidentis meaning in Urdu
Maxim Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Pari Delicto Potior Est Conditio Possidentis

Pari Delicto Potior Est Conditio Possidentis legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)

1989 CLC 1789 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Pari Delicto Potior Est Conditio Possidentis 'Pari delicto potior est conditio possidentis" (where each party is equally in fault the law favours him who is actually in possession)

Both parties to consent decree had agreed to defeat the provision of law by entering into agreement to sell, and put their illegal agreement into effect

Plaintiff and pro forma defendants being equally at fault would be debarred to seek the assistance of Court to get possession of the suit land on the application of maxim `Pari debicto potior est conditio possidentis'

Plaintiff should have thus been non-suited by the Trial Court.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Pari Delicto Potior Est Conditio Possidentis", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/1610

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Pari Delicto Potior Est Conditio Possidentis"

CLC 1989
Civil Revision No.89 of 1986, decided on 8th March, 1989.

1989 C L C 1789

GHULAM AKBAR KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus Haji SHER JAN and other‑‑Respondents

Court: Peshawar'
PLD 1965
Appeal from Appellate Decree No. 747 of 1960, decided on 21st August 1964.

P L D 1965 Dacca 334

Moulvi MUHAMMAD ABDUR RAHMAN‑Appellant Versus Moulvi MOZAHAR UL ANWAR AND OTHERS‑Respondents

Court:
YLR 2024
2024-September-16

2024 Y L R 2757

Abdul Khaliq and another — Petitioners Versus Muhammad Ismail and others — Respondents

Court: Balochistan
PLD 1983
Second Appeal No. 215 of 1970, decided on 20th September, 1982.

P L D 1983 Karachi 200

Mst. AMEENA-Appellant Versus Mst. KULSUM BEGUM AND 2 OTHERS-Respondents

Court:
PLD 1956
Second Appeal No. 170 of 1953, decided on 21st July 1954, from the decree of the Court of Abdul Samad Khan, Addition5l District Judge, Multan at Muzaffargarh, dated the 31st March 1953, affirming that of Salah‑ud‑Din Hanif, Senior Civil Judge, Multan, dated the 29th December 1951.

P L D 1956 Lahore 521

Malik ALLAH DITTA‑Plaintiff‑Appellant Versus Malik ALLAH WAS AYA‑Defendant‑Respondent

Court:
PLD 1951
Regular First Appeal No. 272 of 1946, decided on 16th February 1951, from the decree of Ch. Aziz Ahmad, Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Sargodha, dated the 22nd August, 1946.

P

RAJA and others‑Defendants‑Appellant Versus KARAM ALI and others‑Respondents

Court:
CLC 2007
2006-December-15

2007 C L C 427

MUHAMMAD YOUSUF and others — Appellants Versus BADRUDDIN AHMED and others — Respondents

Court: Karachi