| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 1111 2004 SLD 1111 2004 SCMR 1132 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 764-L of 1999, decision dated: 8-05-2002.(On appeal from the judgment, dated 6-5-1999 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No. 1224 of 1998)
RANA BHAGWANDAS AND FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, JJ
M. Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondent
Civil Petition No. 764-L of 1999, decision dated: 8-05-2002.(On appeal from the judgment, dated 6-5-1999 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No. 1224 of 1998)
RANA BHAGWANDAS AND FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, JJ
M. Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondent
MUHAMMAD SHAFI and others
VS
MUHAMMAD SHARIF
Law:
Section:
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-----S. 8---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Suit for possession---Courts below decreed suit while relying upon registered sale-deed of plaintiff coupled with entries in Jamabandi Register---Concurrent findings of fact were to the effect that plaintiff was lawful owner of suit-land, and status of defendant was that of trespasser--¬Defence plea had been rejected throughout that he had purchased suit¬ land through unregistered sale-deed for consideration of less than Rs.100---Impugned s did not suffer from any legal infirmity or misreading or non-reading of evidence of any material piece of evidence---Supreme Court dismissed petition. JUDGMENT RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.------Petitioners seek leave to appeal from the Lahore High Court judgment, dated 6-5-1999 upholding concurrent findings of fact in a suit for possession of the suit property brought by the respondent against the petitioners. 2. Respondent filed a suit for possession of the suit property claiming to be the owner thereof on the averments that the petitioners had forcibly occupied the same. It was the case of the plaintiff that during pendency of earlier suit for permanent injunction the petitioners encroached upon the property in suit hence the suit for possession. 3. Petitioners contested the suit on the premises that the property had been sold by the respondent and that they had been in possession thereof for the last more than 12 years and lastly that the suit was barred by time. They disclosed names of different persons between whom the property changed hands, which was ultimately purchased by them in the year 1955 through unregistered sale-deed dated 7-5-1955. On assessment of evidence trial Court decreed the suit. First appeal preferred by the petitioners and the Civil Revision in the High Court failed. Hence the present petition for leave to…
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