Find a Lawyer

‑‑‑S. 115‑‑Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 8‑‑Recovery of land from possession of trespasser‑‑Suit for‑‑Claim for cost of improvement‑ Entitlement of trespasser to such claim‑‑Trespasser occupying land without authority of owner thereof, was not entitled to claim any cost of improvement, as whatever he did on land, did at his own risk‑‑Allowing cost of improvement to trespasser, therefore, was erroneous‑‑Such matter having not been challenged before High Court in revision, High Court made no further observation regarding entitlement to claim for improvement‑‑Revision being devoid of merit was dismissed in circumstances.

Ch. Muhammad Hussain for Petitioner.

This civil revision arises out of a suit instituted on 16‑3‑1978 by Haji Imam Bakhsh, the predecessor of respondents Nos.1 to 9 and respondent No.10 against the petitioner in the civil Court at Chiniot, District Jhang for possession of the land measuring 8 Marlas situated in Chah Rodianwali, Dakhli Chiniot, District Jhang alleging that they were the owners of the land and a year ago the petitioner had illegally occupied the same. The petitioner resisted the suit by denying the averments in the plaint and raising various objections as to the jurisdiction, the valuation of the suit, non‑joinder of parties, description of the property and that Haji Imam Bakhsh and Raj Wali were estopped by their conduct from filing the suit. The petitioner maintained that he had entered into an agreement to sell with Inam Ilahi and others, the actual owners of the property and, thereafter possessing the same had raised construction and installed wheat grinding machine. He stated that in case the suit was decreed he was entitled to the costs of improvements made by him on the land in question.

2. The learned Civil Judge relying upon EXh.P.l, a certified copy of a registered sale‑deed showing Imam Bakhsh and Raj Wall as purchasers of 1/3rd share of the disputed property from co‑owners of the Khata and Exh. P.4 showing Imam Bakhsh and Raj Wali as in possession of the disputed Khata Exh.P.5, copy of the record of rights for the year 1971‑72 showing the said persons as owners of the property in question and holding that D.W.3 had no authority from Inam Ilahi and others, the owners of the property to enter into any agreement to sell with the petitioner on their behalf as the same had been admitted by him in his cross‑examination who had also admitted that Imam Bakhsh and Raj Wali had purchased the whole property from Inam Ilahi and others, concluded, while overruling the main objections, that the documents executed by Shah Nawaz D.W.3 in favour of the petitioner were without any authority from the then owners of the land, so the agreement to sell had no effect upon the ownership right of Imam Bakhsh and Raj Wali. The possession of the petitioner was without any legal sanctity behind it being parted to him by a person without any authority from the previous owners. As to the question of improvements which had been claimed by the petitioner to the extent of Rs.60,000 as an amount having been spent by him, the learned Civil Judge assessed the same at Rs.15,000 as the value of the improvement which the petitioner was entitled to receive, after removing engine and grinding machine alongwith other tools, etc. The learned Civil Judge in the result decreed the suit as brought subject to a deposit of Rs.15,000 as the costs of improvement, directing the petitioner to hand over the vacant possession of the premises after removing the engine and grinding machine within one month. This is vide judgment dated 8‑4‑1985.

3. The petitioner having lost, filed an appeal from the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge which the learned District Judge, Jhang dismissed after affirming the finding of the learned Civil Judge vide his judgment dated 9‑9‑1986.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner having lost in his connected revision petition i.e. Criminal Revision No. 1967/D of 1986 entitled "Sher Muhammad v. Inam Ilahi, etc. on the efficacy of the agreement to sell as alleged by the petitioner and its creative effect which was decided by both the Courts below to have been entered upon without any authority from the then owners, has switched on to the point of improvements whereby he had maintained that the petitioner was entitled to receive Rs.60,000 as costs of improvement and both the Courts had erroneously allowed only to the extent of Rs.15,000.

5. It has been pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner that the position of the petitioner, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, was that of a trespasser being an occupant of the parcel of land in question without the authority of the then owners, as such was not entitled to any cost of improvements whatsoever, because it is a well‑settled principle of law that a tres‑passer cannot claim for anything as improvement as whatever he does, he does at his own risk. Both the Courts below have, in this regard, allowed the costs of improvement to the extent of Rs.15,000 erroneously and as the matter in this behalf is not under challenge before this Court, therefore, this Court makes no further observation as to it.

6. This revision petition is dismissed in limine being without any substance.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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