| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1965 SLG 4624 = 1965 SLD 4624 = 1965 PLD 178 |
West Pakistan Peshawar
Regular Second Appeal No. 173 of 1957, decided on 8th January 1965.
Presented By: Muhammad Daud Khan and Faizullah Khan, JJ
Muhammad Din and another v. Mst. Sardara Bibi and others A I R 1927 Lah. 666 and Husan Ali and another v. Azmaluddin and ethers P L p 1963 Dacca 486 ref: Hail Abdullah Jan Khan for Appellants. Khan Abdul Latif Khan for
Respondent No. 7. S. Rifaqat Ali Shah for representatives of
Respondent No. 13.
Regular Second Appeal No. 173 of 1957, decided on 8th January 1965.
Presented By: Muhammad Daud Khan and Faizullah Khan, JJ
Muhammad Din and another v. Mst. Sardara Bibi and others A I R 1927 Lah. 666 and Husan Ali and another v. Azmaluddin and ethers P L p 1963 Dacca 486 ref: Hail Abdullah Jan Khan for Appellants. Khan Abdul Latif Khan for
Respondent No. 7. S. Rifaqat Ali Shah for representatives of
Respondent No. 13.
MIR PIO AND ANOTHER-Appellants
VERSUS
MIR NAWAZ AND OTHERS-Respondents
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 100
Law: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)
Section: 144
Law: Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)
Section: 41
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 100-Question of fact-Finding cannot be disturbed in second appeal. (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 144-Adverse posses sion-Widow chachi of deceased entering into possession of his property without any legal right-Matures her title by adverse possession even if she enters into property erroneously as limited owner. A woman S, as chachi of deceased T, who was not entitled, under general custom, to inherit from T in any capacity, entered into possession of his estate and ultimately mutations of the estate were attested in her favour due to erroneous view regarding custom. S held the estate for more than 12 years continuously and had been openly making alienatious of part of the estate during this period. On the question whether under the circumstances she had matured her title to the estate by adverse possession Held, that her possession of the estate was no better than that of a trespasser ab initio and since her possession was open and hostile, S had become full owner of the property after the lapse of 12 years of her entry into the property of T after his demise. Ch. Satgur Prasad v. Raj Kishore Lai A I R 1919 P C 60; Kali Charan and others v. Mst. Peare alias Pearl A I R 1924 All. 740 (2); Rikhdeo Tewari v. Sukhdeo Tewari and others A I R 1928 All. 45; Abdur Rahman Khan v. Ahmad Khan and another A I R 1933 Oudh 427; Mst. Shanti Devi v. Mani Singh and others A I R 1938 Lah. 6 (b); Abdul Ghani and others v. Mst. Taleh Bibi and another P L D 1962 Lah. 531; Mst. Ghulam Ilahi v. Muhammad Waris Khan P L D 1955 F C 31 and Diwan Singh and another v. Natha Singh and others A I R 1937 Lah. 468 ref. (b) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 41-Transferor of property should be in possession of it as owner with express or implied consent of real owner-Transferee seeking benefit of S. 41-To establish good faith and reasonable care taken to ascertain transferor's power to transfer property. Date of hearing: 22nd December 1964. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD DAUD KHAN, J.-The following table will help in understanding the pedigree of Mir Taj Ali and Abdul…