Mst. HASHIM BIBI Through Her Legal Heirs And 8 Others vs JALAL DIN And Other
This matter originated from a suit for declaration of ownership based on the plea of adverse possession, wherein the petitioners challenged the dismissal of their civil revision by the High Court. The petitioners contended that they had been in continuous possession of the suit land since the end of the 19th century, asserting that they never paid rent or acknowledged the respondents' ownership. The lower courts rejected this claim, relying on revenue record entries that consistently identified the petitioners as tenants or occupancy tenants. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners alleged misreading of evidence regarding these documents but failed to substantiate how the specific exhibits were misread or to demonstrate any error in the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Supreme Court held that the burden of proof regarding adverse possession lies heavily upon the party asserting it, and the petitioners failed to discharge this onus. Consequently, finding no justification to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact rendered by the courts below, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.
- Does the burden of proving adverse possession lie heavily upon the party asserting it?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts when no misreading of evidence is demonstrated?
- Are revenue record entries identifying a party as a tenant sufficient to defeat a claim of adverse possession?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.---The plaintiffs in a suit for declaration that they are the owners through adverse possession of the suit land, have called in question the dismissal by the High Court of their Civil Revision.
2. The petitioners' case was that they are continuously in possession since the end of the last century and that they never paid any Batai, nor did they acknowledge the ownership of the respondents who claimed to be the owners.
3. Thus, the plea of adverse possession having been raised, all the learned Courts below rejected it, as contended, on account of misreading of evidence.
4. It is mentioned in the judgments of the learned lower Courts that the entries in the Revenue Record also indicated that the petitioners were entered as tenants and/or occupancy tenants several times. The exhibited documents have also been referred to in this behalf. When called upon to show any misreading, learned counsel simply stated that the entries in the relevant exhibited documents are not the same as noted above; but, he has not been able to co-relate any document placed on the record which might have shown that the documents Exh. P.1 and Exhs. P-5 to P-8 have been, in any way misread. Accordingly, the onus being very heavy on the petitioners to prove adverse possession, the same in our view, has not been adequately discharged. Be that as it may, the learned Courts below having concurrently rendered the findings of fact against the petitioners, no justification has been made out for interference by this Court. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused.