MUNIR AHMAD And Others vs MULLA BAZ MUHAMMAD And Other
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court dated 30-7-1990, which had set aside the trial court's decree in favor of the petitioners in a suit for declaration and injunction regarding the suit land. The petitioners contended that they were in possession of the suit land based on concurrent findings of lower forums and an old document (Exh.P.1), while the High Court noted that the purchase of the land was not established though possession was proven through oral testimony and Khasra Girdawari entries. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to examine whether the petitioners were entitled to the claim over the suit land in view of the concurrent findings regarding their possession. The Court granted leave, ordered security, and directed that the stay regarding possession shall continue.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to the claim to the suit land in view of concurrent findings of possession?
- Does proof of long-standing possession through oral testimony and Khasra Girdawari entries substantiate a claim for declaration in a civil suit?
ORDER
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment of the High Court dated 30-7-1990.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioners filed a suit for declaration and injunction in the Civil Court on the allegation that about 57 years back the suit land had been purchased by their predecessor-in-interest and obtained possession thereof, and that the respondents were interfering with their peaceful possession. The suit was contested. The trial Court decreed the suit and restrained the respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioners. This order was challenged by the respondents in appeal before the High Court. The appeal was accepted and the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are concurrent findings by the two Courts that the petitioners are in possession of the suit land as such the petitioners have been able to establish their case. Exh.P.1 is a document which was executed about 57 years back but that document has been ignored by the High Court. The High Court has observed "that apparently the plaintiffs have not been able to establish the purchase of the suit land. However, an oral version of the witnesses coupled with entries in Khasra Girdawari certainly proves the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land."
4. Leave to appeal is granted to consider whether in view of concurrent findings of the two Courts about the possession of the petitioners, they are not entitled to the claim to the suit land.
5. Security Rs.5,000.
The stay with regard to possession shall continue.