| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1999 SLG 355 1999 SLD 355 1999 SCMR 996 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No.671 of 1994, decision dated: 16-02-1999, hearing DATE : 15-01-1999
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, JJ
Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No. 5. Remaining
Respondents. Ex parte
Civil Appeal No.671 of 1994, decision dated: 16-02-1999, hearing DATE : 15-01-1999
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, JJ
Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No. 5. Remaining
Respondents. Ex parte
KHUDA BAKHSH and others
VS
MUREED and others
Law:
Section:
(a) Adverse possession--Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider the contention that in presence of the plea of benami transaction, it was not open to the respondents to have raised the plea of adverse possession as the latter was an inconsistent plea with the former plea and the three Courts below erred in accepting the plea of adverse possession in spite of the inconsistent and self-destructive plea---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3). Ghulam Qadir v. Ahmed Yar and others PLD 1990 SC 1049 and Mirza Ghulam Hussain and another v. Ch. Iqbal Ahmad PLD 1991 SC 290 ref. (b) Limitations Act (IX of 1908) ----Art. 144---Adverse possession---Pleas of lawful title and adverse possession in the same case being contradictory pleas could not stand together---Principles. Pleas of lawful title and adverse possession in the same case are contradictory pleas and cannot stand together. By raising such contradictory pleas, party had not perfected its title by way of adverse possession which plea was not available to it as an alternative plea alongwith the plea that it had purchased the suit land, being a benamidar. Person who asserts ownership over a certain property by purchase would not be legally justified at the same time to say that his occupation of the property was hostile or adverse as against the real owner. The logic behind is that a person cannot claim hostile and adverse possession over a property which he holds in his own right and such a possession 14cks the essentials of adverse possession so, far recognized for maturity of ownership on this count. The possession is not to be considered adverse if its origin can be referred to a lawful title, whenever that is possible, because, a person who claims to have entered into possession as a trespasser will be presumed not to have done so if at the time he so entered, he had some lawful title of possession. This in reality is based on the historical and jurisprudential aspect of adverse possession. A defendant entering into possession or being in possession on the assumption of lawful title could not divest himself of that title "by pretending that he had no title at all". The possession was…
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