MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs JALAL DIN And Another
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's revision petition. The matter originated from a suit for possession of land measuring 3 Kanals 19 Marlas brought by the respondent. While the trial court initially dismissed the suit, the appellate court partially accepted the respondent's appeal, finding him to be the owner of 19 Marlas of the land transferred to his father as evacuee property, which was in the possession of the petitioner. The appellate court directed the petitioner to remove the malba within sixty days. The petitioner challenged this decision via a revision petition, which was dismissed by the High Court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, upon hearing the parties and reviewing the record, determined that the petitioner failed to establish that he had matured his title over the suit land through adverse possession. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it.
- Whether a party can successfully resist a suit for possession of land without establishing that they have matured their title over the suit land through adverse possession?
ORDER
ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.--This order will dispose of a petition for leave to appeal filed by Muhammad Alam against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 20- 4-1986, whereby his revision petition was dismissed.
2. The brief facts are that Jalal Din respondent brought a suit for possession of land measuring 3 Kanals 19 Marlas, situate in area of village Chiwinda, Tehsil Pasroor, District Sialkot, against the petitioner and respondents 2 to 10. The suit was contested and the stand of the petitioner and other defendants /respondents was that they had purchased the suit land through a registered sale- deed dated 25th April, 1930. After framing the necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties, the learned Civil Judge, Sialkot, dismissed the suit. On appeal by Jalai Din, the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, however, found that he was owners of only 19 Marlas bearing Khasra No. 3/18/2 transferred to his father as an evacuee property and it was in possession of the petitioner and others. The appeal of Jalal Din respondent to the extent of 19 Marlas was accepted and the petitioner was directed to remove the malba within sixty days, vide judgment, dated 27-2- 1986. This time the appellate order was impugned by the petitioner by way of a revision petition which was dismissed through the impugned order.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record of the case and we find that the petitioner has not been able to establish that he has matured his title over the suit land through adverse possession. We, therefore, find no force in this petitions and the same is dismissed.