Case Details

Citation(s)
2009 SLG 1688 2009 SLD 1688 2009 SCMR 688
Supreme Court of Pakistan
C.M.A. No.2889 of 2008 in Civil Petition No.1167 of 2008, decision dated: 11-02-2009
IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, MUHAMMAD QAIM, JAN KHAN AND SYED ZAWWAR HUSSAIN, JAFFERY, JJ

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

Contractor Haji MUHAMMAD ALAM (deceased) through Legal Heirs

VS

SHAUKAT SULTAN and others

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 9

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 185(3)

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)----S. 9---Ingredients of S.9, Specific Relief Act, 1877---Where co-sharer in possession is dispossessed by another co-sharer, then he has two remedies to avail, he can either file suit for partition or a suit under S.9, Specific Relief Act, 1877---Where the record showed that plaintiffs were in possession when they were dispossessed and the defendants' case was not that possession was taken over with consent of the plaintiff and suit was filed within 10 days of the dispossession, all the ingredients of S.9, Specific Relief Act, 1877 having been established, Trial Court had lawfully decreed the suit for reasons, not open to legitimate exception---Principles. Where co-sharer in possession is dispossessed by another co-sharer, then he has two remedies to avail. He can either file suit for partition or a suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, (I of 1877). Record in the present case, revealed that plaintiffs were in possession when they were dispossessed on 4-5-1989. It was not even the case of the defendants that the possession was taken over with consent of the plaintiffs. The suit was filed after 10 days i.e. 14-5-1989. All the ingredients of section 9 of the Act having been established, the Trial Court had lawfully decreed the suit for reasons not open to legitimate exception. Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), has four ingredients:--- (i) person suing must have been dispossessed, (ii) such dispossession must be from immovable property, (iii) dispossession should be without consent and (iv) dispossession should be otherwise than in due course of law. Under this provision the Court is not competent to decide the title of the property. It only relates to possession of immovable property. If the plaintiff had been illegally dispossessed then section 9 could be invoked. The plaintiff should establish that he was actually in physical possession of the immovable property from which he had been illegally dispossessed without his consent. The plaintiff must allege and prove actual physical possession either personal or constructive. If a co-sharer has been in exclusive possession of a certain portion of the…
🔒
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