Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal 78/P of 1986, decided on 11th June, 1986.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court, dated 12‑2‑1986 in Civil Revision No. 137 of 1980).

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑

‑‑‑Art. 185 (3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115‑‑Revisional jurisdiction‑‑Suit for possession‑‑Respondent claiming to be lawful owner of land by purchase under registered sale‑deed‑‑Suit decreed against petitioner‑‑Decree set aside in appeal but restored in Revision‑‑Order impugned‑‑Petitioner's pleas that High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with a question of fact; had misread evidence; petitioners' title to disputed land had matured by adverse possession and that respondent was estoppels to file suit, not sustained from evidence on record‑‑Petition being deviod of force, dismissed.

S.M. Shah Badshah, Advocate Supreme Court and Jan Muhammad Khan Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Z. Mahfooz Khan Advocate‑on ‑Record for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 11 June, 1986.

BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.

‑‑This petition is directed against the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court, dated 12‑2‑1986 passed in Civil Revision No.137 of 1980. Points raised in this petition are that the impugned decree and judgment of the learned High Court exceeds the jurisdiction vested in it by interfering with a question of fact; miss‑reading of evidence and that respondent No.1 is estoppels to have brought the suit, and, in the alternative, that the petitioner had matured his title to the disputed land by adverse possession.

2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that Suleman respondent No.1 had instituted a suit for possession of the disputed land alleging therein that Sardar Faqir Hussain respondent No.2 was the original owner of the suit land who had sold it to him on the basis of a registered sale‑deed for a consideration of Rs.4,000 and simultaneously the vendor delivered possession of the land and mutation was attested thereafter. It was also mentioned in the plaint that a suit for rendition of account was filed by the respondent in a revenue Court in respect of the same land which was stayed for establishing title over the suit land. The learned trial Court, after framing about 10 issues, decreed the suit of the plaintiff /respondent No.1 against the petitioner per order, dated 26‑9‑1978. Petitioner filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge and set aside the judgment and decree of learned trial Court, per order, dated 11‑2‑1980. Thereafter respondent No.1 filed a revision petition which was accepted by a learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court and judgment and decree of the learned trial Court was restored, vide the impugned judgment, dated 12‑2‑1986. By this petition the petitioner now seeks leave to appeal against the impugned judgment on the grounds mentioned above.

3.The learned trial Judge, under issue No.6, held that defendant No.2 (i.e. the petitioner) is neither the owner of the suit land nor has he become its owner by prescription, declared the plaintiff /respondent to be the owner of 6/20 share out of the suit Khasra number purchased per registered sale‑deed and given effect to in the revenue record through mutation No. 1671 attested on 16‑8‑1971. In the impugned judgment, the learned High Court has also given detailed resume of the evidence and unquestionable documents on the record showing the respondent to be the lawful owner by purchase. Reliance placed by the learned Additional District Judge on the column of cultivation is neither helpful to the defendant /petitioner nor it advanced his case. In the year 1929‑30 the suit Khasra number was under the cultivation of one Khan Zaman son of Shah Zaman of village Chamkani on behalf of Abdul Ali Khan, the predecessor‑in‑interest of defendant No.1 Sardar Faqir Hussain. For the first time in the year 1948‑49 Khasra number in dispute is shown under the cultivation of one Azad son of Nawab a tenant on 'Batai Nisafi' but in the column of cultivation he is shown under Nazar Baz 'Ghair Dakhilkar' and in the corresponding entry in the column of 'Lagan' the entry is 'Mazara Awal Bila Lagan Ba‑waja bail. This entry is repeated in the subsequent Jamabandis. The petitioner has alleged that Abdul Ali Khan had sold an area measuring 90 Kanals from his share in favour of Hashim Khan which was pre‑empted by him. It may be pointed out that the suit Khasra number is not the subject‑matter of the pre‑emption decree. Considering the entire evidence in this regard it can be safely held that though the Khasra number in dispute was under the cultivation of a tenant under the real owners the name of Nazar Baz cropped up in the revenue record by mistake for reason stated above. Thus we find no merit in this petition which is, consequently dismissed.

M . I . 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.