| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1992 SLD 838 = 1992 CLC 1711 |
Regular Second Appeal No.347 of 1907, hard on 15th September, 1991.
Presented By: Before Abdul Majid Tiwana, J
Azim-ud-Din Ch. for Appellant. Malik Muhammad Suleman for
Respondents.
FAJJA through his Legal Heirs---Appellant
VERSUS
MUHAMMAD and others---Respondents
Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)
Section:
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- right to occupy Shamlat Deh or land forming part of village Abadi, but they alienated suit land to those persons, who being co-owners in Shamlat Deh land, had equal right as plaintiff had therein---Suit of plaintiff was thus rightly dismissed by Trial Court. Azim-ud-Din Ch. for Appellant. Malik Muhammad Suleman for Respondents. Date of hearing: 151h September, 1991. JUDGMENT This R.S.A. is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 31-10-1917, by which a learned Additional District Judge at Gujrat, accepting the appeal of Rehma plaintiff-respondent (who, after his death, is represented by his legal representatives), decreed his suit with costs against Ghulam Ali and Ali, defendants-respondents and Fajja defendant-appellants, after setting aside the judgment and decree, dated 20-11-1961, whereby a learned Civil Judge had dismissed his suit with costs. Rehma plaintiff-respondent had brought a suit against his opponents for possession of a piece of land measuring 1 Kanal 6 Marlas situated in the area of Chak Basawa, Tehsil Phalia, District Gujrat, alleging therein that he had given this property to Shahu, the father of Ghulam Ali defendant respondent, and Ali, the defendant-respondent himself, for residential purposes about 8-9 years ago as they were cobblers or Moeen of the village. According to him, they constructed their houses and started residing therein. A pathway leading to his house as also to their newly-constructed house remained common and they went on using it jointly for a number of years as it had existed even before the settlement operation of 1891-92. He alleged that, according to 4the local custom, Shahu and Ali aforesaid were entitled to use the disputed land and the house constructed thereon for residential purposes but they could not alienate it except to the extent of the structure raised by them. Some time prior to the institution of the suit, Ghulam Ali defendant respondent, who had succeeded on the death of his father Shahu, sold the land underneath his residential house to Fajja defendant-appellant where he started adding further construction and even obstructed…