Case Details

Citation(s)
1997 SLG 826 1997 SLD 826 1997 SCMR 1409
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 1274-L of 1993, decision dated: 901 April, 1995
SAAD SAOOD, JAN, MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL AND ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

AHMAD BAKHSH and 3 others

VS

MUHAMMAD NASIR KHAN and 12 others

Law:

Section:

Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887)--Ss.77 & 114---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Plaintiffs' suit for declaration that they were in occupation of land in question as owners and that defendants had abandoned their occupancy rights and that entries in Revenue Record to the contrary were liable to be corrected was decreed by Trial Court---Appellate Court, however, found that Civil Court had no jurisdiction t6 try such suit---High Court came to conclusion that suit was cognizable by Civil Court and held that decree of Trial Court stood restored---Validity---View taken by High Court had proceeded on correct premises, legal as also factual---Supreme Court declined to interfere with findings of High Court that suit was cognizable by Civil Court---First Appellate Court as also High Court, however, had not decided question of occupancy rights by defendants---Leave to appeal was, thus, granted to examine whether High Court having found that. Civil Court had jurisdiction, could restore Trial Court's decree or should have remanded case to Appellate Court to give finding on question of abandonment of occupancy rights by defendants. Nazeer Ahmed Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 9th April, 1995. JUDGMENT ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J. ---Respondents Nos.8 to 13 filed a declaratory suit to the effect that they were in occupation of the suit land as owners; the defendants, the petitioners herein had abandoned their occupancy rights and the entries in the revenue record to the contrary were liable to be corrected. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that the suit land was owned by them and the petitioners had fraudulently manoeuvred the sanctioning of mutation on 16-1-1970 as a result whereof their names were incorporated in the revenue record as owners in terms of section 114 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. The suit was contested by the petitioners contending that they were the occupancy tenants of the suit land and have become owners thereof by virtue of section 114 of Punjab Tenancy Act. They also took an objection that the Civil…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492