Ch. MUHAMMAD KHAN And Others vs ALLAH DITTA And Other
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil suit instituted by the petitioners seeking a declaration of ownership regarding Ihata No. 64 in Village Abadi of Daultala. The petitioners claimed that the property belonged to their predecessor-in-interest, Saran Das, and challenged the validity of previous judicial decrees passed in 1978 and 1981, asserting that the respondents held only rights of residence and ownership of the malba, rather than full title. The core legal question was whether the petitioners had established their proprietary title to the disputed property and whether the lower courts erred in dismissing their claim. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the concurrent findings of the three lower courts, noting that the petitioners failed to prove their ownership or that the property had devolved upon them from Saran Das. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioners' failure to intervene in previous litigation concerning the property indicated a lack of clarity regarding their own title. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that concurrent findings of fact regarding title, absent proof of ownership, do not warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction.
- Does a failure to intervene in prior litigation concerning a property indicate a lack of clear title by a claimant?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by three lower courts regarding property ownership?
- Is a party entitled to a declaration of ownership if they cannot prove the devolution of title from their predecessor-in-interest?
ORDER
RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.---This is a petition by Ch. Muhammad Khan and others, petitioners, seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 6-6-1989.
2. The petitioners instituted a suit for a declaration claiming that Ihata No. 64 in Village Abadi of Daultala was owned by one Saran Das, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, that the decrees passed on 8-10-1978 and 15-6-1981 were not binding upon the petitioners' rights of ownership, and that the respondents, who were mere owners of malba and had right of residence only in the Ihata, were not possessed of any rights to alienate the same. All the three Courts dismissed the claim of the petitioners. The petitioners now seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court.
3. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioners, we have gone through the record and some of the documents. The three Courts have held that the petitioners were not been able to prove that the Ihata in possession of Noor and Hayat, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, belonged to Saran Das, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, and in course of time devolved on them and that Noor and Hayat were mere owners of malba. It appears that the descendants of Noor and Hayat litigated inter se regarding the said Ihata and decrees were passed in 1978 and 1981, but strangely the petitioners evinced no interest to intrude into the litigation in their capacity as owners. This conclusively shows that they themselves were not clear as regards their own title. Taking all circumstances into consideration, we do not consider this to be a fit case for interference. This petition is dismissed.