Pakistan Case LawMUHAMMAD SALEEM And Others Versus GHULAN KHAN And Other
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil suit for declaration and perpetual injunction regarding land ownership. The petitioners claimed title to the suit land, asserting it was purchased from specific vendors. The trial court initially decreed the suit in favor of the petitioners; however, this was subsequently reversed by the Majlis-i-Shoora on appeal, a decision later upheld by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the petitioners had sufficiently established their title to the suit land through credible evidence. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners failed to substantiate their claim of ownership. The Court observed that the evidence presented was insufficient, as the witnesses failed to identify the suit property, and the alleged vendors did not testify to support the petitioners' claim of purchase. The key principle laid down is that in a suit for declaration of title, the burden of proof rests squarely upon the plaintiff, and failure to establish the chain of title or substantiate the purchase through credible, consistent evidence warrants the dismissal of the claim.
- Does the failure of a plaintiff to substantiate a claim of purchase with credible evidence warrant the dismissal of a suit for declaration of title?
- Is a finding of fact regarding the insufficiency of evidence by lower courts open to interference in the absence of misreading of evidence?
ORDER
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the High Court, dated 4-4-1990.
2.The facts, in brief, are that the petitioners filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit land. The suit was contested by the respondents and it was averred that the suit land was Shamlat and was divisible amongst 110 shares. It was not denied that any of the defendants had sold out the suit land to petitioners' predecessor. The suit was decreed by the trial Court in favour of the petitioners on 29-9-1988. The defendants did not challenge the decree. However, the other defendants filed an appeal which was accepted by the Majlis-i-Shoora on 17-2- 1990. The High Court maintained the appellate judgment of Majlis-i-Shoora. The reasons which prevailed with the High Court in dismissing the revision petition of the petitioners are that the evidence led by the petitioners was insufficient; the witnesses could not identify the suit property and their evidence does not inspire confidence.
3.Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any mis--reading of evidence. The evidence on record proves that the suit land was settled. The petitioner's case is that the suit land is situated within Khasra No.118. They have failed to substantiate their claim. Their claim about the purchase of the land is not established. It was vague. According to the petitioners, they had purchased the suit land from Haji Khanak and others. Haji Khanak has appeared as witness but he has not stated that he alongwith Wazir and others were owners of the suit land and that the petitioners had purchased it from them. The other vendors have not appeared to support the claim of the petitioners about the sale of the suit land. As the petitioners have failed to establish their title, the judgment of the two higher Courts is not open to any exception.
Judges on this bench
- Muhammad Afzal Zullah3,959 judgments
- Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry1,248 judgments