FARID KHAN and 3 others vs ABDUL LATIF and 11 others
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil suit for declaration and possession of a house filed by the respondents against the petitioners. The petitioners resisted the suit by claiming adverse possession for over twelve years and asserting a right to compensation for improvements made to the property, valued at Rs. 80,000. The trial court rejected these pleas, finding that the petitioners failed to substantiate their claims, and decreed the suit in favor of the respondents. This decision was upheld by both the appellate court and the High Court in revision. Upon review, the Supreme Court observed that the petitioners had raised contradictory defenses by simultaneously denying the respondents' ownership while claiming possession through an alleged agreement to justify compensation for improvements. Furthermore, the court noted that the petitioners' contention that the property was a vacant site (Banjar Qadeem) upon which they constructed was unsupported by the evidence. Finding that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were well-founded, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that no grounds existed for interference.
- Can a defendant simultaneously deny a plaintiff's ownership and claim compensation for improvements based on an alleged agreement?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts subject to interference in a petition for leave to appeal when supported by evidence?
- Does a failure to substantiate a plea of adverse possession justify the dismissal of a defense in a suit for possession?
ORDER
1. ' FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is prayed for against the judgment and decree of Peshawar High Court, Peshawar dated 11-1-1993 in Civil Revision Petition No,12 of 1993.
2. ' Respondents/plaintiff's suit for declaration and possession of a house rented out to the petitioners/ defendants instituted on 8-9-1981 was resisted by the defendants on the plea of adverse possession for more than 12 years and on the ground that they have raised construction to the tune of Rs,80,000 to which they would be entitled in case the respondents/plaintiff's suit is decreed. After recording evidence of the parties the learned trial Judge held that the defendants failed to substantiate the pleas of adverse possession and entitlement for the improvement. The plaintiff was held to be the owner of the suit property decreed the suit on 19-7-1989. The petitioners' appeal and revision both were dismissed by Additional District Judge, Peshawar and the High Court vide their judgments dated 15-11-1992 and 114-1993, respectively. Leave to appeal is prayed for against the judgment of the High Court.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and perusal of the record we find that the petitioners/defendants raised contradictory pleas i,e, they denied the respondents/plaintiffs' ownership and at the same time claimed to be in possession of the property through an alleged agreement and on its basis claimed the costs of improvement made by them. Their case that the property in question was a vacant site (Banjar Qadeem) and that they, through their own resources have raised construction on it is not substantiated in the evidence on record. The concurrent findings of the three Courts below on the material issues are fully supported by the evidence on record. No case, therefore, has been made out for leave to appeal. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.