Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 94‑P of 1978, decided on 23rd May, 1979.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court date 20‑6‑1978, in Civil Revision No. '329 of 1978).

----Arts. 142 & 144 ‑ Adverse possession ‑ Burden of proof Plaintiff admittedly owner of suit land and defendant setting up plea of adverse possession‑Burden, held, lay on defendant to show as to from which date, how, and by which overt acts he perfected his title as alleged and plaintiff's suit could not be dismissed as time‑barred for not showing in his plaint date from which he was dispossessed by defen dant‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 142.

----Arts. 142 & 144‑Adverse possession‑Contention that various trees over strip of land in dispute grown by defendant and act of growing such trees ' an act sufficient to show his adverse claim or possession Held‑Without force‑Trees being admittedly on strip of land belonging to plaintiff, plaintiff to be considered as their owner and a bare word of defendant‑petitioner, without any cogent evidence on subject, cannot deprive owner of such trees.‑[Adverse possession].

Qazi Mohammad Jamil, Advocate and M. Qasim Imam, Advocate‑on- Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 23rd May 1979.

‑Malik Aman (plaintiff) (respondent) filed a suit for possession of the suit land which on demarcation proceedings by the revenue authorities had been declared as being part of the property belonging to him but was wrongly encroached upon by Said Aman (predecessor‑in interest of the present petitioner). The suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge, Mardan, on 12‑3‑1975. The contesting defendants filed an appeal but without any success, as the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mardan, on 3‑11‑1975. The petitioner filed a, revision being Civil Revision No. 329; 78 which also met the same fate and was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court on 20‑6‑1978. The defendant‑petitioner has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the suit of the plaintiff‑respondents was time barred, inasmuch as, he had not shown in his plaint the date from which he was dispossessed by the defendant‑petitioner as required under Article 142 of Schedule (First) of the Limitation Act (IX of 1908). The contention has no merit. From the very argument raised by the learned counsel and as found by the Courts below, the plaintiff was they owner of the suit land and as the defendant had set up the plea of adverse possession, therefore, it was for him to show as to from which date, how and by which overt acts he had allegedly perfected his prescriptive title. There was not an iota of evidence on the subject and in the circumstances the plea raised by the learned counsel obviously cannot be accepted. When confronted with this situation, learned counsel argued that over the strip of land in dispute there were various trees which had been grown by his client, and that the act of growing these trees was an act sufficient to show his adverse claim or possession. The point raised again has no merit, because, the trees being admittedly on the strip of land belonging to the plaintiff, he is to be considered as their owner and a bare word of the a petitioner, without any cogent evidence on the subject, cannot deprive the owner of those trees. The judgments of all the subordinate Courts and the, High Court are supported by cogent reasons on the subject negating the prescriptive plea of the defendant and the learned counsel could not point out any error therein warranting interference by this Court.

3. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.