| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1975 SLG 6 1975 SLD 6 1975 PLD 311 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 23-P of 1971, decision dated: 9th May 1975, hearing DATE : 10th February 1975
MUHAMMAD GUL AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHEEMA, JJ
Peer Bakhsh Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad, Tariq Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Mahfooz Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Qasim Imam, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
Respondents Nos. 3 to 21. Ex
Civil Appeal No. 23-P of 1971, decision dated: 9th May 1975, hearing DATE : 10th February 1975
MUHAMMAD GUL AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHEEMA, JJ
Peer Bakhsh Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad, Tariq Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Mahfooz Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Qasim Imam, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
Respondents Nos. 3 to 21. Ex
AHMAD KHAN
VS
RASUL SHAH AND OTHERS
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 100
(a) Adverse possession- --Special Leave to Appeal-Granted to consider whether in view of serious divergence of opinion between Courts below on question of perfection of plaintiffs' title by prescription case was rightly decided by High Court. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---S. 100--Second appeal-Adverse possession, question of--May not necessarily be always a question of fact--Right construction of document, particularly revenue record--A question of law. The question whether possession is adverse or not, is one of simple fact, But it may not necessarily be so in all cases, for it may as well be a conclusion of law or a mixed question of law and matter of legal inference to be drawn from certain documents or any proved or admitted fact. Right construction of documents and in particular in a revenue record has always been regarded as question of law which the High Court is not precluded from considering in second appeal. Lala Fateh Chand v. Rani Kishan Kanwar (1912) 391 A 247 ref. (c) Muhammadan Law-- --Guardian-Alienation of minor's property by de facto guardian --Not voidable but void. It is well-established principle of Muslim Law that a de facto guardian of a minor has no power to transfer any right or interest in immovable property, of the minor. Such a transfer is not merely voidable but is void. Principles of Muhammadan Law by Mulla, 17th Edn., p. 299, Monograra 364 ref. (d) Adverse possession-- --Sale of land abortive or otherwise defective in law but vendee remaining in possession after sale of property-Vendee, in circumstance, holds adversely to vendor-Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 144. It is well-established principle that a vendee who remains in possession after the sale of property which goes off or is otherwise defective in lair bolds adversely to the vendor. Mst. Jasoda Kuar v. Jenak Asissir A I R 1925 Pat. 787 ref. Jagdev Narain Singh v. Baldev Singh A I R 1922 P C 272 and Noor Ahmad v. Mst. Hubab Jan P L D 1974 S C 78 distinguished. (e) Admission-- Admissions of fact-Only relevant and not conclusive--Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 17. Admissions of facts are only relevant, and are not conclusive and therefore, may be shown to be…
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