Case Details

Citation(s)
2017 SLG 2183 2017 SLD 2183 2017 YLR 867
Peshawar High Court
C.R. No. 494 of 2005, decision & hearing Date : 28-11-2016.
LAL, JAN KHATTAK, JUSTICE
Abdul Sattar Khan for Petitioners. Zia-ur-Rehman for
Respondents.

HAJI MIR ILYAS AND OTHERS

VS

HAJI GUL BADSHAH AND OTHERS

Law:

Section:

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction---Waqf---Contention of plaintiffs was that suit property had been reserved for graveyard---Suit was decreed concurrently---Validity---Suit property had been recorded as Shamilat deh in Misl-e-Haqiat for the year 1926-27---Defendants had failed to produce any evidence with regard to inclusion of their names in the column of cultivation in the jamabandi for the year 1935-36---Subsequent entries showing names of defendants in the column of cultivation did not confer any title upon them---Continuous use of some property as graveyard by itself was a proof that same had lost its earlier character---Existence of common graveyard in some property for long time was more than a written deed required for a Waqf---Plaintiffs had proved their case through worth reliable documentary and oral evidence---No illegality or irregularity had been committed by the Courts below---Revision was dismissed in circumstances. 2014 SCMR 914 and AIR 1940 Lah. 119 rel. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: LAL JAN KHATTAK, JUSTICE:---.--- This civil revision under section 115, C.P.C. is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2004 of the learned Additional District Judge-III, Charsadda whereby the petitioners' appeal, against the judgment and decree dated 30.9.2003 of the learned Civil Judge, Shabqadar, has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs had filed a suit against the petitioners/defendants for the following reliefs:-- (a) Declaration to the effect that the case property had been reserved by their predecessors for graveyard prior to the settlement of 1926-27. (b) That the petitioners-defendants be permanently restrained from interfering in the case property. (c) That through mandatory injunction, the petitioners-defendants be directed to remove from the case property whatever superstructure they have raised on it and; (d) Possession of the case property be also given to them by demolishing the superstructure raised thereon by the petitioners/defendants. 3. Petitioners/defendants contested the suit by filing their written statements, wherein,…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492