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.
Review Side No. 44 of 1954‑55, decided on 31st July 1956, District Multan.
S.5‑Occupancy tenancy‑Onus to establish right on tenant.
The petitioner based his claim to occupancy rights on continuous possession from 1890 and non‑payment of rent except demands of Government, but an entry in Jamabandi of 1944‑45 showed that persons in possession paid rent in kind.
Held, that the petitioner had not adequately discharged the onus of proving his case.
Sh. Nur Ahmad for Petitioners.
The petitioner claimed occupancy rights in the land in dispute. He led evidence in the trial Court.
He based his claim on his continuous possession since 1890 or so. The excerpts of various Revenue Records showed that he was not paying any rent in addition to the Government demands. There was, however, a Jamabandi entry of 1944‑45 showing that the persons in possession paid rent in kind. The petitioner does not appear to have any evidence in rebuttal of the presumption which arises against him on the basis of that entry.
When the petitioner seeks a decree in respect of some valuable rights, he can obtain a revisional order from me in his favour only if he has discharged the onus of Droving his case. It does not appear that he discharged this onus adequately, at lease in respect of the adverse Jamabandi entry of 1944‑45. My predecessor has already dismissed his petition for revision against the Assistant Collector's order which had been confirmed by the Collector and the Com missioner. I am not satisfied that I should interfere by way of review. I accordingly dismiss this petition for review.
A. H. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer