WAHEED SHAH AND OTHERS vs Haji SHAHZADA AND OTHERS
This matter arises from a petition concerning a dispute over the title of property in suit, wherein the petitioners claimed ownership either through adverse possession or as ancestral property. The core legal question revolved around whether the document Exh. 1/2 dated 1st October, 1967, which lacked specific property boundaries, could validly be held to refer to the suit land and support the concurrent findings of the lower courts against the petitioners. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the absence of boundaries in the document was not fatal, as the lack of settlement in the area and corroborating oral testimony established that the document referred to the land in dispute. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The key principle laid down is that a lacuna in the description of property within a document can be cured by oral testimony and surrounding circumstances where no official settlement exists in the area.
- Whether the absence of boundaries in a document regarding property is fatal to its applicability when supported by oral testimony?
- Can concurrent findings of lower courts regarding property title be disturbed when the deficiency in property description is made good by oral evidence?
ORDER
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD HALM, ALI G. C. J.-The dispute in this petition relates to the title of the property in suit.
2. This petitioners claimed that either they were the owners by adverse possession or in the alternate it was their ancestral property. This plea was raised by the petitioners in the context of the document Exh. 1/2 dated 1st 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.
3. It is now urged before us that as the boundaries were not mention 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 no settlement in the area and it could not refer to any other land except that 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.
4. ' 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. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.