Case Details

Citation(s)
2013 SLG 814 2013 SLD 814 2013 CLC 1220
Sindh High Court
Suit No.1469 of 2010, decision dated: 28-11-2012
NADEEM AKHTAR, J

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Mst. AFSHAN--Plaintiff

VS

Syed KAMRAN ALI SHAH and 6 others----Defendants

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 8,54,55

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 8,54,55

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 151,O.XXXVIII,R.5

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------Ss. 8, 54 & 55---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.151 & O.XXXVIII, R. 5---Suit for possession, mesne profits and injunction---Plaintiff contended that suit property had been gifted to her by its owner (her deceased mother); that defendant was in illegal possession of title documents and ground floor thereof; and that civil court in its decree passed in an earlier suit had declared defendant as trespasser and made him liable to hand over possession and original title documents of suit property to plaintiff and pay her rent and utility charges for entire period of illegal possession---Ex parte evidence led by plaintiff due to non-filing of written statement and non-appearance by defendant---Validity---Suit property was admittedly owned by deceased mother of plaintiff, who was minor and sent to Kaashan-e-Atfaal (orphenage) after death of her mother---Suit property after death of plaintiff's mother had been claimed by three different persons at different intervals to have been gifted to him by plaintiff's mother and all their claims had been rejected by courts at different times by passing different decrees---Plaintiff had established herself to be sole, exclusive and lawful owner of entire suit property including ground floor in possession of defendant---Defendant's stance regarding alleged gift of ground floor of suit property in his favour by plaintiff's deceased mother had been declared to be false by such decree---Defendant had chosen to remain absent and had not cross-examined plaintiff, thus, her evidence had remained unchallenged and unrebutted---Plaintiff had successfully proved her case---Plaintiff could be granted decree for mesne profits, utility charges and taxes for a maximum period of three years---Court in exercise of its inherent powers could attach defendant's property before passing money decree against him in order to save such decree from becoming unexecutable---Defendant had remained in illegal possession of suit property since long without payment of rent and utility charges and taxes to plaintiff---Defendant, if vacated suit property or was evicted therefrom, would not be traceable after…
🔒
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