Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42

Specific Relief Act, 1877 (I of 1877)-- ----S. 42--Suit for declaration was decreed--Filing of cognovits by co-sharers--No evidence regarding possession of suit plot was produced by plaintiff No. 3 was not appeared before trial Court--The plaintiff has failed to produce any cogent, documentary or oral evidence to support his claim of possession of plot--All witnesses of Defendant No. 1, 2 have categorically supported stance of Defendants and inspite of taxing cross examination petitioner has failed to shake their testimony--Written statement of co-defendant cannot bind other defendants and will be binding on maker of cognovit--No suit for possession could be filed by a co-sharer against other co-sharer and only remedy is for him to ask for partition of suit--Revision petition dismissed. 2000 SCMR 1391, 1999 SCMR 2325, 2006 YLR 1071 , 2002 CLC 711 ref. JUDGMENT This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 15.11.2017, passed by the learned Additional District Judge-III, Abbottabad, whereby appeal filed by the respondents/Defendants No. 1 and 2 against the judgment and decree dated 22.04.2016, passed by learned Civil Judge-VII, Abbottabad was allowed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner/plaintiff brought a suit against the respondents/defendants for deceleration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the suit property/plot measuring 10 marlas in Khasra No. 961 measuring 22 Kanals 10 Kanals, situated at Mauza Sheikh-ul-Bandi, Abbottabad on the strength of Mutation No. 27167 dated 10.08.2011. Respondents/ defendants have no concern whatsoever with the suit plot and they are not entitled to claim the ownership thereof or to take forceful possession or to make construction thereon. In relief ‘B’ petitioner/plaintiff has also sought permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants restraining them from taking forceful possession making construction or damaging the DPC or otherwise interfering with the suit plot. Petitioner/plaintiff has also sought recovery of possession and demolition of construction if made during pendency of the suit. 3. After service of summons, the respondents/defendants put their appearance and…

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