Law: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)

Section: 142 , 144

  Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----Arts.142  &  144---Suit  for  possession  of property---Plaintiff's ownership was neither denied by defendant nor he claimed adverse possession over the same and attaining of title by prescription ---Defendant never disclosing throughout litigation as to what inherent right he was possessing in property in question, for which he was resorting to litigation---Defendant at the fag-end of arguments before High Court, taking plea in contrast of his evidence and pleadings that he had matured his title through prescription---Apart from the fact that such plea was taken at very late stage and without any basis, title by prescription had been declared un-Islamic and a kind of usurpation by Supreme Court in Maqbool Ahmad's case (1991 SCMR 2063) therefore, such plea was of no avail to defendant---Suit of possession thus, stood rightly decreed. Maqbool Ahmad v. Government of Pakistan 1991 SCMR 2063 rel. Adverse possession--- ----Requirements---For maturing title through adverse possession it is sine qua non that person making assertion of adverse possession must establish disclaimer of the title which must be notorious and explicit. Limitation Act (IX of 1908)---   ----Art. 144---Claim through adverse possession and prescription---Such claim is un-Islamic and a kind of usurpation. Maqbool Ahmad v. Government of Pakistan 1991 SCMR 2063 distinguished. Sardar Zahur Ahmad for Petitioner. Khalid Rehman Qureshi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 14th May, 1994. JUDGMENT This petition under section 115, C.P.C. for revision of the judgment and decree passed by District Judge, Haripur, dated 18-10-1992, whereby he confirmed the judgment and decree of Civil Judge, Haripur, dated 24-3-1991, has been filed by Raza Muhammad petitioner against Mst. Maftoolan Jan respondent. Relevant facts giving rise to the present litigation are that Mst. Maftoolan Jan respondent had purchased the suit house through registered deed No. 1252 dated 5-12-1984, wherein the present petitioner Raza Muhammad was residing not as tenant but, in fact, he was given this concession by the original owner Mst. Razia Sultana as gratus.…