IMAM ALI vs MUHAMMAD DIN and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the dismissal of a Civil Revision by the High Court, which had upheld a decree concerning easements of street passage and water drainage. The petitioner contended that the law of easements could not apply to properties that were formerly evacuee properties transferred under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that there was no proper determination of the dominant and subservient tenements and that the case did not qualify as an easement of necessity. The Supreme Court rejected these arguments, holding that the law of easements is applicable to evacuee properties transferred under settlement laws. The Court further observed that the lower courts had already established the dominant and subservient nature of the properties as a finding of fact, and that the petitioner's remaining arguments lacked factual support. Consequently, the Court affirmed the lower court's decision and refused leave to appeal, reinforcing that settlement laws do not preclude the application of easement rights.
- Is the law of easements applicable to evacuee properties transferred under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Can a party challenge the existence of dominant and subservient tenements when lower courts have already established these as findings of fact?
- Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a defendant against the dismissal of his Civil Revision by the High Court. It had arisen out of a decree passed against him in a suit filed by the respondents' side regarding two easements a street passage and drainage of water.
2. ' The respondents' property vis-a-vis which the existence of these easements has been accepted, was evacuee. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner's property also was evacuee.
3. According to him originally they all formed one unit but were transferred to different parties under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958.
4. ' Learned counsel has contended: that the respondents could not be granted any decree under the law of Easements because both the properties were at one time evacuee; that there was no determination of the "dominant" and "subservient" property; and, that it could not be treated as a case of easement of necessity.
5. None of the arguments has any force. Law of Easements, it is well settled now, is being applied to the evacuee properties transferred under the Settlement Laws. The second argument has also no force because according to the findings reached by all the learned Courts below, the dominant and subservient nature of the relevant properties has clearly been established in this case. The last B argument is without any factual basis. There is no finding of fact in the impugned judgment in favour of the petitioner's contentions.
6. ' Leave to appeal accordingly is refused.
Cited by 1 case
- JANNAT BIBI Versus AZIM BAKHSH 1994 CLC 1695