| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 3115 2024 SLD 3115 2024 MLD 839 |
Peshawar High Court, Mingora Bench
Criminal Appeal No.278-M of 2023, decided on 10th October, 2023.Date of hearing: 2nd October, 2023.
Present: Shahid Khan, J
Yousaf Khan for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondent (being in motion).
Criminal Appeal No.278-M of 2023, decided on 10th October, 2023.Date of hearing: 2nd October, 2023.
Present: Shahid Khan, J
Yousaf Khan for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondent (being in motion).
LAL ZADA----Petitioner
VS
BAKHT AFSAR and others----Respondents
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 54,55
Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877)--- ----Ss.54 & 55---Permanent and mandatory injunction---Drainage watercourse---Easement, right of---Respondent/ plaintiff approached the Trial Court through a lis for permanent/mandatory injunction to the effect that he and proforma defendants Nos. 3 & 4 were owner in possession of the suit property and petitioners/defendants had no right whatsoever to interfere in his possession by way of using it for drainage---Petitioners/defendants contested the claim of plaintiff and contended that they were using the land of plaintiff for drainage of waste water as easement right---Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff---Appellate Court dismissed the appeal---Petitioners assailed the concurrent findings of Courts below---Held, that respondent/plaintiff was owner in possession of the subject property to the extent of his share---Factum of his ownership had been admitted by the petitioner/defendant in his written statement---Moreso, the commission report as well as the revenue record further supported ownership of the respondent/plaintiff, as such, to this extent, there was no dispute at all---Record showed that an alternate drainage watercourse was available to the petitioner, as such, the pre-requisite conditions for acquisition of easement right had not been fulfilled, therefore, on the basis of evasive statement of using the subject property for drainage since long, the petitioner could not claim easement right---Revision petition was devoid of any merit, which was dismissed in limine. Safdar Shah and others v. Mehboob-ur-Rehman PLD 2017 Peshawar 14 and Atta Muhammad v. Ghulam Din 2011 CLC 220 rel. JUDGMENT SHAHID KHAN, JUSTICE:---.--- The petitioner has called in question the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Buner, dated 20.03.2023, whereby, his appeal was dismissed, and consequently, the judgment and decree, dated 21.06.2022, of the learned Civil Judge-VII, Buner, in respect of the subject property situated in the vicinity of Tehsil Daggar, District Buner, was maintained. 2. In essence, the respondent No. 1/plaintiff, Bakht Afsar, approached the learned trial Court through a lis for…
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