Pakistan Case LawALLAH DITTA and 2 others Versus DAULAT BIBI and 3 others
The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the dismissal of their revision application by the High Court, which had upheld the decree passed in favor of the respondents in a suit for permanent injunction. The respondents filed the suit claiming ownership and possession of a house without providing Khasra numbers in the plaint, alleging long-term possession, damage during floods, subsequent repair, and interference by the petitioners. After fluctuating decisions by the trial and appellate courts, the suit was ultimately decreed in favor of the respondents, and the revision was dismissed. The core legal question concerns the sufficiency of property description in the plaint and the burden of proof regarding ownership. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the petitioners' contentions regarding the lack of specific property particulars and discrepancies in evidence warrant further examination. The key principle laid down is that a party claiming ownership must sufficiently identify the property and substantiate its claim through consistent evidence.
- Whether a plaintiff claiming ownership and permanent injunction must provide specific particulars such as Khasra numbers in the plaint?
- Does a discrepancy between the description of property given in the plaint and the evidence produced vitiate the suit?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when concurrent findings of lower courts involve substantial questions regarding property identification?
ORDER
SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Judge in Chambers whereby the revision application filed by them was dismissed.
2.The respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with the property in their possession. In the suit it was claimed that they are the owners in possession of a house particulars of which were mentioned in para 2 of the plaint, but no Khasra number was given. It was alleged that they have been in possession for the last 80 years. In 1973 during floods the house was raised to the ground. Before that the respondents had rented out the house to Muhammad Hussain and Allah Dad who had installed a floor mill, but removed it after the flood. Thereafter, the respondents got the house repaired and placed about 5,000 bricks and other material therein and have been in possession thereof. As the petitioners were interfering with their possession, the suit was filed. This suit was dismissed, but in appeal the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside and the case was remanded for rehearing. After the remand the suit was again dismissed against which the respondents filed an appeal, which was allowed and the suit was decreed. The petitioners then filed revision application, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondents having claimed the ownership of the property, were bound to prove it. He contended that in the plaint, the particulars of the property with reference to the house number or Khasra number have not been mentioned. They have only given description, but in evidence the description given by the petitioners is completely different and contrary to what has been stated in the plaint. Leave is granted.
Judges on this bench
- Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry1,248 judgments
- Saleem Akhtar1,928 judgments