Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 8,42

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984

Section: 113

PLJ 2026 Civil (Note) 19 [Sindh High Court, Circuit Court Larkana] Specific Relief Act, 1877 (I of 1877)-- ----Ss. 8 & 42--Suit for declaration & possession dismissed--Cancellation of--Document--Appeal--Dismissed--Mense profit--Maintainability--Limitation--Failure to prove ownership--Failure to prove illegal dispossession--Mesne profit not proved--Requirement to prove legal character/right to property--Doctrine of clean hand--Superssion of material facts--Concurrent findings--Revisional power was not an appellate jurisdiction; it is supervisory in nature, confined to correcting jurisdictional errors, illegality, or material irregularity--Revisional Court did not sit as a Court of re-appraisal of evidence--Under Section 42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, a declaratory suit requires plaintiff to establish a legal character or right to property--Neither witness substantiated forcible eviction--Thus, Issues No. 3 and 4 were rightly answered in negative--Claim for mesne profits also failed because unlawful occupation was not proved.                                                               [Para 9, 16 & 17] A, C & D Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (10 of 1984)-- ----Art. 113--Admission in evidence--Burden of proof--Once plaintiff admitted alienation by his brother, burden shifted, and plaintiffs could not dislodge defendants’ possession. [Para 13] B Concurrent Findings-- ----Concurrent findings of Courts below were based on admissions, documentary evidence, and consistent testimony--They are neither perverse nor contrary to law--No jurisdictional defect, illegality or material irregularity has been demonstrated--Revisional Court cannot re-appraise evidence merely because applicants desire a different…