| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1999 SLG 1034 1999 SLD 1034 1999 CLC 1657 |
Sindh High Court
High Court Appeal No. 186 of 1997, decision dated: 20-10-1998, hearing DATE : 6-10-1998
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI AND RAJA QURESHI, JJ
Naimur Rehman for Appellant. G.H. Abbasi for
Respondents
High Court Appeal No. 186 of 1997, decision dated: 20-10-1998, hearing DATE : 6-10-1998
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI AND RAJA QURESHI, JJ
Naimur Rehman for Appellant. G.H. Abbasi for
Respondents
Mrs. SHAMIM ARA OMRAO through Attorney Agha Abid Shirazee
VS
Qazi SAEED AKBAR and another
Law:
Section:
(a) Limitation Act (IX of 19(18)-------S. 28---Adverse possession, 'plea of---Scope---Provisions of S.28, Limitation Act, 1908, having been declared to be repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam on 31-8-1991, have ceased to have any effect since then and does not stand on the statute book any more. 1991 SCMR 2063 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XXXIX. Rr.l & 2---Suit for injunction and declaration---Interim relief--If an ultimate declaration could not be granted to the applicant, Court would be justified in refusing interim relief. 1991 SCMR 2063 rel. 1998 SCMR 1996 and 1995 MLD 1962 ref. , (c) Enforcement of Shariah Act (X of X1991)--- ----S. 4---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.2A---Islamic laws are at a higher level than other general laws of the country. (d) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----Art. 144---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O:XXXIX, Rr.l & 2---Interim injunction. grant of---Prima facie case---Plea of adverse possession---Adverse possession had to be adequate in continuity in publicity and to an extent to show that the possession was adverse to the competitor---Quality of adequacy, continuity and exclusiveness which could qualify adverse possession was absent in the case of the appellant/plaintiff inasmuch as notices were issued. to the appellant/plaintiff to remove the encroachment and vacate the disputed land--Appellant/plaintiff had not been able to demonstrate to have been in lawful and bona fide possession of the suit land---In absence of any legal right, appellant/plaintiff could not be held to be having a prima facie case---Interim injunction was declined by Trial Court, which did not warrant any interference. JUDGMENT RAJA QURESHI, J.--- Questioned in this appeal is an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on an application (C.M.A. 1934 of 1995) under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2- C.P.C. in Suit No.249 of 1995. The suit instituted by the appellant is for declaration, injunction and cancellation of documents and contains following main prayers:----- "(a) declare that the plaintiff has acquired full right, title and interest by way of prescription /adverse possession. (b) declare that the…
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