Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 77

Law: West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967

Section: 52

Law: Evidence Act, (1 of 1872)

Section: 59

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section:

  Punjab Tenancy Act (WI of 1887)---- -S. 77 [as adapted in Azad Jammu and Kashmir]--Ejectment of tenants-- Category of suits triable by Revenue Courts---In absence of relationship of landlord and tenat Civil Court was vested with jurisdiction to entertain anti decide suits for possession or ejectment. Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act (as adapted in Azad Jammu and Kashmir) describes category of suits triable by Revenue Courts. In II-Group clause (e), among others, it is postulated that suits by landlords to eject the tenants shall be instituted in and be determined by Revenue Courts. This suggests that a suit for ejectment against tenant is cognizable by Revenue Court and not by Civil Court. In a plain case of ejectment by landlord, it is undenied that the Revenue Court alone is vested with jurisdiction to determine the point at issue. However, this provision is subject to an exception. This is so as the Revenue Court is competent to determine a suit of ejectment of the tenant when the relationship of the landlord and tenant exists. In a case where it is averred that the relationship of landlord and tenant has extinguished or is disputed, in that case, the Civil Court alone is competent to decide the matter. The first source to help in deciding the point of jurisdiction is the pleadings of the plaintiff. In addition to that, the Court, if not satisfied from the pleadings of the plaintiff, may examine him to arrive at safe conclusion. The Court is not excluded to examine the written statement of the defendant to decide the question of its jurisdiction. Thus, when it is satisfied that the relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist, the Civil Court is vested with jurisdiction to   entertain the suit for possession or ejectment and decide it accordingly. Limitation Act (IX of 1908)-- ---Art.144--Adverse possession---Mere possession for a long time was not sufficient to constitute adverse possession against the owner---Possession and adverse possession being altogether two different things, its (of property over a period for more than twelve years, could not be taken as a definite assertion of proprietary rights---Claim of title based on…