| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2005 SLG 1448 2005 SLD 1448 2005 CLC 1903 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 1225 of 2000, decision dated: 12-07-2005.
MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Revision No. 1225 of 2000, decision dated: 12-07-2005.
MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
SOHNI KHAN and 4 others
VS
GHULAM QADIR and others
Law:
Section:
Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887)-------S. 5---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42--- Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115---Declaration of title---Adverse possession, plea of---Concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below---Plaintiffs asserted in plaint that suit-land was in their continuous / undisturbed possession and their possession had matured into a title by way of adverse possession---Defendants claimed that the possession of plaintiffs was that of tenants under them---Predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs was occupancy tenant without paying any rent of the land in his possession, which was changed in year, 1969-70 on account of non-payment of dues in terms of S.5 of Punjab Tenancy Act, 1892---Plaintiffs did not challenge the change in Revenue Record for twenty years till the present suit was filed on 7-5-1990, and that too on the basis of adverse possession without. challenging the change in the Revenue Record---Both the, Courts below dismissed the suit and appeal respectively ---Validity --Suit of plaintiffs, as it stood, was not competent, as plea of adverse possession could be used as a shield by defendants but it could not be made' basis for filing the suit claiming proprietary rights on the basis thereof---Adverse possession was contrary to the Injunctions of Islam---Such plea otherwise could not be proved on record as mere entry of non-payment of rent to owner in year 1969-70 was not enough in support of declaration of title ---Khasra Girdawari and other Revenue Record revealed that at the time of institution of suit, the plaintiffs were tenants; hence no decree in their favour could have been passed about their status earlier to year, 1969---None of the Courts below committed any illegality/irregularity as envisaged by S.115 C.P.C. because they passed the s strictly in consonance with the evidence on the record---No case for interference in revisional jurisdiction of High Court was made out---Revision was dismissed in circumstances. Mian Muhatmnad Abbas for the Petitioners. Sh. Naveed Shahryar for the Respondents. ORDER Instant civil revision assailed judgments/decrees, dated 17-6-1998 and 7-42000 passed by the learned, Civil Judge and…
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