ZAITOON BEGUM and others vs Agha QASIM ALI and others
The matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning a dispute over a house originally owned by Jeewan Khan, which was sold to the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest in 1933, with the vendor and later his widow remaining in possession as tenants. The respondents subsequently filed a suit for a declaration that they had become owners through adverse possession since 1933. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the lower appellate court decreed it, and the High Court dismissed the petitioners' revision petition. The core legal question is whether persons whose predecessor entered possession as a tenant and against whom an ejectment order was passed can subsequently claim title by adverse possession. The Supreme Court held that the contention raised by the petitioners regarding the tenant status and the bar against claiming adverse possession requires examination. Accordingly, the Court granted leave to appeal, laying down that a tenant or their successors cannot easily set up a plea of adverse possession without establishing a clear termination or change of permissive character of possession.
- Can a tenant or their successors-in-interest claim ownership through adverse possession against the landlord?
- Does the continuation of possession following an unexecuted ejectment order affect the possessor's legal status?
- Whether the failure to execute an ejectment order transforms permissive possession into adverse possession?
ORDER
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The property in dispute is a house which belonged to Jeewan Khan, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. In 1933 Jeewan Khan sold the house to Latafat Ali Shah, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. However, Jeewan Khan and after his death his widow Mst. Anwar Begum were allowed to remain in possession thereof as tenants. In 1953 the petitioners obtained an order of ejectment against Mst. Anwar Begum but did not execute the order. In 1958 Mst. Anwar Begum filed a suit for a declaration that the petitioners had no right in the land in dispute but it was dismissed for non-prosecution Subsequently, the petitioners filed a suit for possession but it was disposed of as having abated on account of their failure to implead the legal representatives of one of the deceased defendants.
2. The petition arises out of the suit filed by the respondents on 18-5-82 for a declaration that as they had been in adverse possession since the sale in favour of Latafat Ali Shah in 1933 they had become owners of the house in dispute. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court but in appeal it was decreed by the Additional District Judge, Lahore. The petitioners' revision petition in the High Court failed. They now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
3. In support of this petition it is contended that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents became tenant under Latafat Ali Shah and their status as such was reaffirmed in 1954 when the order of ejectment was passed against Mst. Anwar Begum. It was, therefore, not open to them to take up the plea of adverse possession.
4. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners needs examination.Leave to appeal is granted.
Security for costs in the sum of Rs, 5,000. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the