MANJHA AND 7 Others vs Haji ABDUL MAJID AND 32 Other
This petition arises from a judgment of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court (Bahawlpur Circuit) which allowed the respondents' appeal and decreed their suit for possession regarding the disputed land. The property in dispute was purchased by the predecessor of respondents Nos. 1-5 via a registered sale deed in June 1950. The plaintiffs filed a suit for possession after discovering that the defendants were asserting an adverse prescriptive title. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the defendants had acquired prescriptive title by adverse possession, which was affirmed by the District Judge. However, the High Court reversed these findings upon second appeal, concluding that none of the defendants were in continuous possession of any particular field number for the requisite prescriptive period. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that adverse possession of one defendant could be tacked to that of another. The Supreme Court held that the respondents failed to discharge the onus upon them and that the case was concluded by findings of fact, seeing no reason to interfere with the High Court's order. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Can adverse possession of one defendant be tacked to the adverse possession of another defendant for the purpose of acquiring title by prescription?
- Does a registered sale deed confer valid title when the defendants fail to prove it is collusive and without consideration?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding continuous possession?
1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-This petition is from the judgment of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court (Bahawlpur Circuit) allowing the respondent's appeal and decreeing their suit for possession.
2. The property in dispute consists of 8 field numbers, covering an area of 56 kauals, and it had been purchased on 7th June 1950, by Jam Ghazi (plaintiff No. 1) father of respondents Nos. 1-5, from two persons, Allah Ditta and Ahmad Bakhab, by a registered deed of sale. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 are sons of Jam Ghazi.
3. The plaintiffs claim to be owners of the disputed land. From the aforesaid mutation proceeding they came to know that the defendants were trying to assert adverse prescriptive title to the land and the plaintiffs, therefore, filed a suit for possession against the defendants on 24-5-1956. The defendants admitted the registered sale deed as also the title of the plaintiffs but set up prescriptive title alleging adverse possession for more than 12 years, which according to them, had matured long before the date of sale. They admitted inter alia the existence of the said registered deed of sale but alleged that it was collusive and without consideration. They, however, failed to prove that the said sale deed was collusive and without consideration. The trial Court held that the plaintiffs were the owners of the land in question but the defendants had acquired prescriptive title by adverse possession long before the aforesaid sale and, therefore, the sale deed conferred no title on Jam Ghazi, plaintiff No. 1. The plaintiffs' suit was accordingly dismissed. Plaintiffs' appeal was dismissed by District Judge, Rahimyar Khan. In second appeal before the High Court the High Court found none of the defendants in continuous possession of any particular field number for any particular prescriptive period. As an example it had been stated that if in one harvest or say for some period, possession was of one defendant, in the other harvest and for some other period the same field number was found in possession of another defendant or even in possession of persons not shown to be connected with the defendant or defendants in any manner: The learned Advocate appearing in support of the petition has contended that adverse possession of one defendant could be tacked to the adverse possession of another defendant for the purpose of acquisition of title by prescription. In support of this contention he has relied on the cases of Padhu Miav.Rahimuddin (PLD 1964 Dacca 655) and Ramayya v. Kotamma acid others (I L R 45 lead. 370). In both these cases the question was whether the suit was filed within the prescribed period of limitation, i.e., 12 years from the date of dispossession. In the first case the ratio decidendi was- that the plaintiffs and their predecessors were not in possession of the suit land within 12 years from date of institution of the suit and it was barred under Article 142 of the Limitation Act.
4. On the facts of the present case we do not think we are called upon to express any definite opinion on the aforesaid question. It is quite evident that the respondents have failed to discharge the onus which lay heavily upon them and the case was concluded by findings of fact.
5. We see no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court and the petition is accordingly dismissed.