Case Details

Citation(s)
1970 SLG 3117 1970 SLD 3117 = 1970 SCMR 636
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 58-P of 1969, decided on 27th March 1970.
Presented By: Hamoodur Rahman, C. J. and Wahiduddin Ahmad, J
Peer Bakhsh Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mohd. Tariq Khan, Advocate- on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondent.

DILAWAR KHAN AND ANOTHER-Petitioners

VERSUS

PORDIL KHAN-Respondent

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1962

Section: 58

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Peshawar Bench, dated the 4th July 1969, in Civil Miscellaneous No. 84 of 1969). Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58 (3)-Conclusion of lower Court based upon adequate evidence both oral and documentary Finding that sale was of entire property and not of a moiety based on consideration of such evidence-A finding of fact-Leave to appeal refused. Date of hearing : 27th March 1970.   JUDGMENT HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan, Peshawar Bench, in a second appeal., The learned Judge has also refused to certify the case as fit for appeal under the Letters Patent. The appeal arose out of a suit filed by the present petitioners against the respondent for possession of a 2/3rd share in the lands in suit. These lands belonged to the petitioner and his two brothers Mohammad Afzal and Akram Khan jointly, but by a mutation of sale attested on the 18th October 1933, they were purported to have been sold to the respondent herein. The petitioners who are one of the three brothers and the son of another brother, averred in their plaint that it was Mohammad Afzal alone who had sold his individual 1/3rd share. It was not a sale of the entire share of all the three brothers. The respondent on the other hand claimed that all the three brothers had sold their entire share in the suit lands along with the Hissa Shamilat, for consideration and that he had since then been in. possession of the same as owner. In the alternative he claimed title by adverse possession for more than 12 years. The trial Court found that the shares of all the three brothers had been sold in the entire land and, therefore, dismissed the suit. On appeal, however, the learned Additional District Judge, Peshawar, reversed the decision of the trial Court and passed a decree for joint possession of 2/3rd share in the suit lands in favour of the petitioners. On second appeal the High Court reversed the decision of the learned District Judge and restored that of the trial Court dismissing the suit of the petitioners. The…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register