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 No. 583‑R of 1983, decided on 22nd October, 1983.
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 20th August, 1983 passed by the Peshawar High Court, in R. S. A. No. 9 of 1982).
Art. 185 (3) ‑ Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 144 Adverse possession‑Boundaries of disputed land not described in document ‑ No settlement taken place in area and docu ment could not refer to any other land except that in dispute deficiency, of not mentioning boundaries in document, held, not fatal for document ; lacuna in description of property having been made good by oral testimony‑Leave to appeal refused.
Sardar Akhtar Ali Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 22nd October, 1983.
‑The dispute in this petition relates to the title of the property in suit. This petitioners claimed that either they were the owners by adverse possession or in the alternate it was their ancestral property. The petitioners in the context of the document Exh raised this plea. 1/2 dated Ist October, 1967, wherein there is a recital that the suit land was given to Sultan, a defendant himself and the father of the other defendants on batai. It was duly proved by the scribe and a marginal witness Shaheryar. Courts below on its basis and that of the oral evidence held against the petitioners.
It is now urged before us that as the boundaries were not mentioned in this document, it could not be said to refer to the suit land. This objection is baseless as it is of common knowledge that there has been n settlement in the area and it could not refer to any other land except the which was in dispute. This deficiency could not be regarded as fatal, and if, at all, there was any lacuna in the description of the property that was made good by the oral testimony.
In this view of the matter, as all the Courts have concurrently held against the petitioners, we do not see .Any reason to disturb the finding. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer