Pakistan Case Law
1991 SCMR 367

Mst. REHMAT BIBI And Others vs MUHAMMAD ALI And Other

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1991 SCMR 367
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 855 of 1987 W.P. No. 107-R of
Date1990-01-31
Judge(s)Abdul Shakurul Salam and Rustam S. Sidhwa
Authored byRustam S. Sidhwa
ResultPetition dismissed
Summary

This is a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 19-9-1987, arising from a dispute over the transfer of a house. The core legal question is whether an occupant who failed to formally apply for the transfer of a disputed property in her name on the basis of possession can challenge the transfer of the entire property made to another party on the ground that it was not evacuee property prior to a specific date. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioner's claim was rightly rejected because she did not formally apply for the transfer of the property in her possession. The key principle laid down is that an occupant who fails to seek transfer of property in the prescribed manner cannot successfully challenge a transfer made to another based on possession.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can an occupant who failed to apply for the transfer of a property challenge its transfer to another person?
  • Whether a property not treated as evacuee property prior to 1-1-1957 can be transferred based on possession?
leave to appealevacuee propertyproperty transferpossessionresidual property

ORDER

RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.---This is a petition filed by Mst. Rehmat Bibi and other petitioners, seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 19-9-1987. ,

2. The petitioner, who alleges to be the occupant of the first floor of the disputed house, claims the said portion as residual property against Muhammad Ali respondent, who had been transferred the whole house by the Deputy Administrator (R.P.) under his order dated 26-8-1984 on the basis of his possession. The petitioner did not formerly apply for the transfer of the property in her name on the basis that she was in possession. Rather, she challenged the transfer made in favour of respondent No.1 on the ground that the property could not be treated as evacuee property as it had not been treated as such prior to 1--1-1957. Since the petitioner did not formerly apply for the transfer of the property which was in her possession, in her name, her claim was rightly rejected.

There being no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.