| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1963 SLG 3420 = 1963 SLD 3420 = 1963 PLD 283 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision (formerly Regular Second Appeal) No. 165 of 1956, decided on 4th December 1962.
Presented By: Sardar Muhammad Iqbal, J
Khalilur Rahman for Appellants. Rafiq Ahmad Khan Bangesh for
Respondents. Dates of hearing : 8th, 9th, 13th and 14th November 1962.
Civil Revision (formerly Regular Second Appeal) No. 165 of 1956, decided on 4th December 1962.
Presented By: Sardar Muhammad Iqbal, J
Khalilur Rahman for Appellants. Rafiq Ahmad Khan Bangesh for
Respondents. Dates of hearing : 8th, 9th, 13th and 14th November 1962.
FEROZE DIN AND OTHERS--(Defendants)-Appellants
VERSUS
HASHMAT ALI (DECEASED REPRESENTED BY REHMAT ALI ETC.) AND OTHERS-(Defendants)-Respondents
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: S. 100 [S. 115
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----- ----S. 100 [S. 115 after amendment of 1962]-Mere fallacy in appraising evidence on facts, or an erroneous finding of fact, however grave and "inexcusable" Second appeal not competent-[Durga Chaudhrani v. Jawahar Singh Chaudhri I L R 18 Cal. 23 (P C) ; Wali Muhammad v. Muhammad Bakhsh A I R 1930 P C 91 and Abdul Majid v. Ghulam Ahmad P L D 1953 F C 38 ref.]. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----- -----S. 100 [S. 115 after amendment of 1962]-Second appeal-Documents claimed to have been referred to by counsel before lower appellate Court but not considered in judgment of that Court-Considered by High Court in second appeal. (c) Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887)----- ------S. 39-Denial of landlord's title does not entail forfeiture of occupancy rights -Such rights cannot be forfeited on any ground other than those specified in S. 39-[Dabiruddin and others v. Abdur Rahim and others I L R (1890) 17, Cal. 196 ; Dhora Kairi v. Ram Jawan Kairi Mahton and others I L R (1893) 20 Cal. 101 and Fakir v. Wazir Khan (1918) 32 P R 1918 ref.]. (d) Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887)------ ---S. 9-Tenant's posses sion extending over a "few decades"-Does not confer occupancy rights on tenant. (e) Practice----- ----Plea of jurisdiction (that suit was cognizable by Revenue Court and not by Civil Court)-Not raised in trial or lower appellate Courts-Not raised in grounds of second appeal in High Court-Allowed to be raised in arguments where plea could be decided without calling for any "further evidence". (f) Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887)----- -----S. 77 (3) (d)-Suit to establish or disprove a right of occupancy-Cognizable by Revenue Court only when relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted-Owner's suit to eject defendants as trespassers Defendants pleading adverse possession; in alternative status as occupancy tenants-Suit, held, cognizable by Civil Court. Clause (d) of subsection (3) of section 77, Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, applies only to those cases in which the relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted and…