Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115 , 2

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.VIII,    R.2    &    S.115---Suit    for possession---Defendant in his written statement taking up pleas of adverse possession and claim of purchase--Defendant, however, failed to substantiate both the pleas through evidence-- Effect---Findings of Courts below whereby they had found plea of adverse possession and claim of purchase raised by defendant to be far from proved-- Such findings of fact based on evidence being well-founded, no exception could be taken against them---No jurisdictional error, material irregularity or patent illegality having been pointed out, no interference was called for in revisional jurisdiction. Sri Manmatha Nath Kuri v. Moulvi Muhammad Mokhlesur Rehman and others PLD 1969 SC 565; Budho and others v. Ghulam Shah PLD 1963 SC 553; Pakistan Development Corporation Ltd. v. The Bank of Bahawalpur Ltd. PLD 1960 (W.P.) Kar. 885 Riaz v. Muhammad Salim and 4 others 1989 SCMR 1491; Ghulam Rasul and others v. Karim Bakhsh and others 1990 CLC 1439 and Mst. Urman Jee v. District Judge, Kohat and 3 others PLD 1990 Pesh.100 ref. Ghulam Naqashband for Petitioners. Haji Mahfuz Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 6th November, 1991. JUDGMENT This petition under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, arises out of a suit brought by respondents Nos.1 and 2 against the petitioners and pro forma respondents Nos3 to 8 for possession of the disputed house and recovery of price of Khakshora amounting to Rs.1,000 on the claim that the petitioners had repudiated their tenancy. The petitioners contested the suit and, while denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, they laid claim to the title of the disputed house by way of purchase from the predecessor-in-interest of the pro forma respondents Nos.3 to 8. They pleaded adverse possession and claimed compensation for improvements in the event of the success of the suit. The pleadings of the parties gave rise to as many as 8 issues including the relief. For the purposes of this petition the findings of the two Courts below were questioned on the following issues only:--…