Find a Lawyer

Revision Application No.368 of 1980, decided on 14th May, 1987.

---S.42--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.142--Suit for possession--No declaratory relief with regard to title to suit property claimed by plaintiff in suit for possession.--Held, in absence of title having been established in accordance with law, question of grant of decree for possession could not arise.

---Ss.9 & 42--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 142--Appellate Court below, while dismissing suit for possession brought by plaintiff, on ground that he had failed to prove title to suit land, holding that respondents-defendants were owners of property--Appellate Court below, held, should have refrained from making any observation with regard to title to respondent which was outside scope of suit- Observations of Appellate Court declared to be in excess of its jurisdiction.

Abdul Karim Siddiqui for Appellant.

Respondent (absent).

Date of hearing: 14th May, 1987.

This Civil Revision Application under Section 115 CPC is filed against the order of Ist Addl. District Judge, Karachi, whereby the learned Judge reversed the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit for possession. The applicant had instituted a suit for possession against the respondent on the allegation that the respondents were his licensee whose licence has been terminated. The suit for possession was clearly based on assertion of title by the applicant which was disputed and denied by the respondent. The respondent in their written statement claimed that they are themselves the owners of the premises as the property in suit was constructed by the late husband of respondent No.1. The learned trial Court on the basis of oral evidence led by the applicant held that the applicant was the owner of the property and granted a decree of ejectment. The learned Ist Appellate Court reversed the decree on the ground that the oral evidence led by the applicant could not prove his title and on the contrary he reached conclusion that respondents were the owner of the property and he accordingly dismissed the suit of the applicant. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the suit instituted by the applicant no declaratory relief with regard to the title of the applicant in respect of the suit premises was claimed. Since title of the applicant was disputed in the suit it was necessary for the applicant either to have claimed a declaratory relief with regard to their title to the suit before they could claim, relief for possession against the respondent or in the alternative. they should have established the title to the suit property by some' other legal process. In the absence of the title having been established in accordance with the law the question of grant of decree for, possession could not arise. Although the learned Ist Appellate Court dismissed the suit of the applicant on the ground that the applicant, had failed to prove the title to the land but it exceeded its jurisdictions in holding that the respondents were the owner of the property. The learned First Appellate Court having reached the conclusion that the applicant had failed to establish his title to the suit property should have refrained from making any observation with regard to the title of respondents which was outside the scope of suit. I accordingly held that the observations of Ist Appellate Court regarding title of respondents in respect of property in suit were in excess of jurisdiction. With these observations the Revision Application is dismissed but the parties are left to bear their respective costs.

M.Y.H./D-11/ K

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.