Moulvi MUHAMMAD HASSAN vs MUHAMMAD AMIN And Other
This matter concerns a civil dispute over the ownership of the roof situated above shops Nos. 379 and 380 in Loralai Town. The petitioner sought a declaration and perpetual injunction against the respondents, challenging administrative orders that permitted the respondents to construct a parda wall on the roof of shop No. 379. The petitioner claimed the roof was part of his house, while the respondents asserted ownership based on the transfer of shop No. 379. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could establish title to the roof through oral evidence in the absence of documentary proof. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, holding that the petitioner failed to produce any transfer order or title deed to substantiate his claim. The Court affirmed the principle that oral evidence cannot substitute for a document of title in property disputes. Furthermore, the Court noted the significant delay of approximately twenty years in filing the suit, rendering the claim meritless. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, confirming the High Court’s findings as unexceptionable.
- Can oral evidence serve as a substitute for a document of title in a property ownership dispute?
- Is a suit for declaration and injunction maintainable when the plaintiff fails to produce a title deed for the disputed property?
- Does a significant delay in filing a suit for property rights affect the merits of the claim?
ORDER
S.A. NUSRAT, J.--The petitioner filed a suit in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Quetta seeking declaration to the effect that the orders dated 30th October, 1967, 3rd May, 1968 and 16th November, 1967 passed by the Town Committee, Loralai and the Deputy Commissioner were null and further sought perpetual injunction restraining the private defendants from disturbing his peaceful possession over the roof of shop Nos.379. Shops No.379 are situated side by side in the Loralai Town and on the top of Shop No.380, there is a house belonging to the petitioner bearing No.418-B. All these properties were evacuee. Shop No.380 was transferred to the petitioner and shop Nos.379 to Abdul Ghafoor and Habibur Rahman. The shop No.379 was later sold to respondents Nos.1 to 6 by Abdul Ghafoor and Habibur Rahman in August, 1966. Permission was granted by the Town Committee to the respondents Nos.1 to 6 for construction of a parda wall on the roof of their shop No.379 which action was approved by the Deputy Commissioner. Having failed before the local authorities the suit, as aforesaid, was filed by the petitioner, which was decreed by the learned trial Court on 30-3-1978. Respondents Nos. l to 6 thereupon filed appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed in the suit which was, however, dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 1-6-1980. The matter was then taken to the High Court by the respondents No. l to 6 which was allowed as per impugned judgment. The facts of the case show that in essence the dispute devolved on the question of ownership of the roof over shops No.379 and 380. The learned High Court, on perusal of record and evidence in the case, found that no transfer order was produced by the petitioner in support of his claim and instead attempt was made through oral evidence to show that the roof of shop No-379 contained superstructures which were part of his house No.418-B. In the circumstances, it was found, and rightly so, that oral evidence could not be a substitute for a document of title and since the petitioner had not produced the necessary title deed, all that remained in the field was the fact that the respective shops No.379 and 380 were transferred under the relevant Settlement Laws to different persons who were entitled thereto independently. Besides, it was found that the transfer in favour of the first respondent was made some time in 1965 and it was only after the expiry of a period of about 20 years that the petitioner had chosen to file the suit.
2. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the impugned judgment, we find that the findings of the learned High Court are unexceptionable. The petition has no merits and is dismissed accordingly.