Case Details

Citation(s)
2010 SLG 2900 = 2010 SLD 2900 = 2010 MLD 404
Peshawar High Court
Civil Revision No.486 of 2008, decided on 11th December, 2009.
Liaqat Ali Shah, J

SHARAFAT and 2 others---Petitioners

VERSUS

NIGET SABA---Respondent

Law:

Section:

LIAQAT ALI SHAH, J.---Sharafat son of Zarin resident of Zarin Kalay and two others have impugned the judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge Charsadda at Tangi in Civil Appeal No.46/13 vide which appeal of the petitionersdefendants against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge Tangi was dismissed.   Respondents-plaintiffs had instituted a suit against the petitioners-defendants for possession in respect of property measuring 31 Kanal 19 Marla bearing Khasra Nos. 898, 899, 902, 904 and 918 to 920 situated in Mauza Koz Behram Dheri Tehsil Tangi District Charsadda.   The respondents-plaintiffs claimed that the suit property was their ownership and was given to one Muhammad Ghawas as tenant and after his death one Zardad was cultivating the same as tenant. That in the year, 2001, the said Zardad handed over the possession of the suit property to the respondents-plaintiffs and thereafter it was cultivated by them. The relinquishment of tenancy by Zardad was later on brought into black and white vide Iqrar Nama, dated 20-8-2003. The plaint further reveals that proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. were initiated in respect of possession of the suit property by the respondents-plaintiffs and it was observed by the learned Court during the proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. that possession of the petitioners-defendants was illegal and the dispute between the parties was of civil nature, hence the parties were directed to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction. In para. 4 of the plaint it is averred that the petitioners-defendants being desperate persons were all out to take forcible possession of the disputed property which necessitated the submission of complaint under section 145, Cr.P.C.   The petitioners-defendants when summoned submitted written statement and claimed that they were tenant in possession of the suit property and the respondents-plaintiffs never cultivated the land. They termed the relinquishment deed as bogus and fabricated one. They claimed that they were inducted in the suit land by one Zardad. In the preliminary objection the question of jurisdiction was also raised.   The pleadings of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register