BARKAT Versus RAHIM BAKHSH
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a civil matter concerning a claim of ownership over land based on adverse possession. The core legal question is whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts rejecting the plea of adverse possession extending over one hundred years suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference by the High Court and this Court. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any infirmity in the concurrent findings of the lower courts. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact regarding claims of adverse possession will not be interfered with by the superior courts unless a clear legal or factual infirmity is shown in the lower courts' judgments.
- Whether concurrent findings of lower courts regarding adverse possession can be interfered with without showing any legal infirmity?
- Does a claim of adverse possession extending over one hundred years automatically establish ownership without proving the required legal elements?
ORDER
1. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J. ‑‑The petitioner's claim to the land in dispute is based on the plea that he has become owner thereof on the basis of adverse possession extending over one hundred years. The trial Court and the Additional District Judge have rejected his plea and the High Court after examining the record declined to interfere with their concurrent findings. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the said finding suffers from any infirmity. Leave is refused.
2. M.Y.F4./B‑41/S Leave refused.