Case Details

Citation(s)
2005 SLG 1115 2005 SLD 1115 2005 CLC 83
Sindh High Court
Civil Revision No.82 of 1998, decision dated: 12th February; 2004.
RAHMAT HUSSAIN, JAFFERI, 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

MADErsA DARUL FAZAL HALANI--Applicant

VS

MUHAMMAD RAMZAN KASHMIRI

Law:

Section:

(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)-------Arts. 30 & 133---Not challenging any piece of evidence during cross­examination---Effect---Presumption would be that such piece of evidence was accepted as true by other side. Muhammad Akhtar v. Manna 2001 SCMR 1700 rel. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 8---Words "entitled to possession" as used in Specific Relief Act, 1877---Meaning and scope ---Possessory rights or interest in property--­Nature of---Possessor's right to maintain ejectment against other person on basis of possessory rights or interest in property---Principles stated. The words "entitled to possession" mean a right to possession on the basis of ownership or possession of which person claiming has been dispossessed. There may be a title by contract, inheritance, prescription or even by possession and the last will prevail where no preferable title is shown. The lawful possession of land is sufficient evidence as owner as against a person, who has no title whatsoever and is a mere trespasser. Possession is a good title against all persons, except the rightful owner and entitles the possessor to maintain ejectment against any person other than such owner, who dispossessed him. A person in possession without title has an interest in the land possessed which, unless and until the true owner interferes, he can dispose of by execution of sale in just the same manner as if his title was unimpeachable. The possessory rights or interest of a person in possession of property is not only transferable, but also heritable, therefore, he can dispose of the same by deed, gift, Will or by execution of sale. Ismail Ariff v. Mahomad Ghous, ILR 20 Cal. 834 (PC); ILR 6 Bombay 215; AIR 1958 Mad. 497; Gobind Prasad v. Mohan Lal ILR 24 All. 157; Asher v. Whitlock LRI QB 1 and Shri Gopal v. Ayesha Begum ILR 29 All 52 fol. Abdul Haq Comboh for Applicant. Muhammad Sadiq Ansari for Respondent. Date of hearing: 30th January, 2004. JUDGMENT The present revision application is directed against the concurrent findings of two Courts below by which the suit for possession and mesne profits filed by the applicant was dismissed. The facts giving rise to the present…
🔒
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