AKBAR ALI and others vs GHULAM HUSSAIN and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a civil suit regarding the ownership of approximately 32 kanals of land in village Bakhianwala, Tehsil Daska. The petitioners claimed ownership based on the assertion that they were original mortgagees of the land and that the mortgage had not been redeemed for over sixty years, thereby extinguishing the mortgagor's rights. The core legal question was whether the petitioners could substantiate their claim of being mortgagees of the specific land in dispute. Both the trial court and the Additional District Judge dismissed the suit, finding no evidence to link the disputed land to the alleged mortgage. Before the High Court, the petitioners' counsel conceded that they could not establish the identity of the land as the subject of the mortgage. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioners failed to prove the foundational fact of their status as mortgagees, their claim to ownership necessarily failed. Consequently, the Court found the petition meritless and refused leave to appeal, affirming the lower courts' findings.
- Does a claim of ownership based on unredeemed mortgage fail if the identity of the mortgaged land cannot be established?
- Is a concession by counsel regarding the failure to prove the identity of disputed land binding on the petitioners in revision proceedings?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The petitioners filed a suit for a declaration that they were owners of about 32 kanals of land situate in village Bakhianwala in Tehsil Daska of Sialkot District. They claimed that initially they were mortgagees in the said land but as the mortgage had not been redeemed for more than sixty years they had become the owners thereof. The trial Court dismissed the suit after holding that there was no evidence on the record to show that the land in dispute was the same which had been mortgaged with them. Its finding in this regard was confirmed by the Additional District Judge, Sialkot. Before the High Court, the learned counsel appearing on their behalf conceded that he could not establish that the land in dispute was the same as had been mortgaged with them. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed their revision petition. The petitioners seek leave to appeal from this Court.
2. As noticed earlier, the claim of the petitioners to the land in dispute is based on the assertion that it was first mortgaged with them and as the mortgage had not been redeemed within the specified period, they had become owners thereof. As the petitioners had not been able to establish that they were ever mortgagees in the land in dispute, the basis of their claim thereto disappeared. In view of this position, their suit was rightly dismissed. This petition is without any merit. Leave is refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.