Case Details

Citation(s)
1993 SLG 1041 1993 SLD 1041 1993 CLC 2279
High Court (AJ&K)
Appeal No. 36 of 1991, decided on 12th March, 1993
SYED MANZOOR HUSSAIN GILLANI, J

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

MUHAMMAD ALAM and another ---Appellants

VS

AZIZUR-REHMAN and others

Law:

Section:

(a) Adverse possession--­- --- Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 127--- (b) Adverse possession--­ ---- Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts. 127 & 142--- AIR 1929 PC 231; PLD 1990 SC 1; PLD 1987 SC 453; 1983 SCMR 6,22 and PLD 1971 Azad J & K 108 rel. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 19(18).__ ____S. 100___ ORDER "By a person (Twelve years) When the exclusion excluded from joint becomes known to family property to the plaintff." enforce a right to share therein. "There is no definition of the word "exclusion", in the Limitation Act and the question whether a person has been excluded from joint family, must depend upon the facts of the particular case. An intention to exclude is an essential element. It is necessary, therefore, for the Court to be satisfied that there was an intention on the part of those in control and possession of the joint family property to exclude the person and that exclusion was to his knowledge. One N, a member of a joint Hindu family after the death of his father and mother went to live with his maternal-uncle voluntarily. He was not turned out. But he went with the consent of the eldest male member in the joint family. He was helped by his maternal-uncle and was living in an humble way. He was not educated in the same way as the other members of the joint family but he was not dissatisfied with the conditions under which he was living. Held: that the mere fact that during the time that N was living with his maternal-uncle the members of the joint family did not subscribe towards his maintenance and marriage expenses did not prove that those in control and possession of the joint family property intended to exclude N from his share of the joint family property. It was consistent with the evidence that the members of the joint family who were in control and possession of the joint family property though willing to allow N to be maintained at the expense of his maternal-uncle never did anything to indicate to N or anyone else that they inended to exclude him from his share in the joint family property." (P. 238 C 1)". The question of limitation, adverse possession and ouster may, in one way be disposed of with reference to recent…
🔒
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