Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 107‑1' of 1974, decided on 31st January 1975.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, dated the 14th May 1974, in R. S. A. No. 331 of 1969).
-----Art. 144‑Adverse possession Onus lies on person claiming title by adverse possession to establish his case‑Contention that jamabandis, relied upon by lower Courts in concluding petitioner's possession as not having matured into ownership, had conflicting entries, held, by no means advances petitioner's case.
Abdur Rahim Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Qasim Imam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 31st January 1975.
The dispute in this case relates to the ownership of 16 kanals 14 marlaa of land bearing khasra Nos. 1986, 1992, 1993 and 1994 situate in village Tnrlandi, Tehsil Swabi, District Mardan, which originally belonged to one Said Akbar. The latter sold the land to one Shebzada who in turn transferred to Muhammad Ismail and Painda Khan respondents. Feroz Shah the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners being in possession of this land denied the title of the respondents who brought a suit for possession. Feroz Shah resisted the suit and claimed title on the basis of adverse possession,
2. Having considered the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Civil Judge found that the plaintiffs‑respondents were the owners of the suit land and that the defendants‑petitioners' adverse possession had not matured into ownership. His claim to compensation for improvements was also rejected. The suit for possession was decreed except in respect of khasm No. 1985 of which Feroz Shah was held to be a mortgagee. Both the parties went is appeal. The first appellate Court upheld the findings that the plaintiffs‑respondents were the owners of the suit land and that the defendants‑petitioners' plea of title by adverse possession was untenable, The finding that Feroz Shah was mortgagee of khasra No. 1986, was however, set aside and instead he was found entitled to Rs. 900 on account of improvements. Feroz Shah went in second appeal before the High Court and died during its pendency. His legal representatives were brought on the record and only the point of adverse possession was argued on their behalf before the High Court.
3. Having perused the relevant entries in the various jamabandis pre pared in succession, the learned Single Judge of the High Court upheld the finding of the Courts below that maturity of the petitioner's title by adverse possession remained un-established.
4. In support of the petition, learned counsel half‑heartedly contended before us, that there; were conflicting entries in the Revenue Record. Be that as it may, this by no means advances the case of the petitioners to establish their title by adverse possession of which the onus lay heavily on them. The petition is pevoid of force and is accordingly dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer