Pakistan Case LawASGHAR KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN
This matter concerns a dispute over the possession of a house in Bhai Pheru, originally transferred to the respondent under Settlement Scheme No. VII in 1969. The respondent filed a suit for possession against the petitioner, alleging forceful occupation. The petitioner contested the claim, asserting that the house in his possession was transferred to his father and was distinct from the property claimed by the respondent. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, a decision upheld by the Additional District Judge in appeal and the High Court in revision. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could substantiate his claim that the property in his occupation was different from the property transferred to the respondent. The Supreme Court held that while the respondent produced valid allotment orders and defined boundaries, the petitioner failed to provide evidence demonstrating that the house transferred to his father was the same as the disputed property. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
- Can a petitioner succeed in a property dispute by claiming the property in his possession is different from the one claimed by the respondent without providing evidence?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts when the petitioner fails to substantiate his defense?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The parties are closely related. On 29-9-1969 the respondent was transferred a house in Bhai Pheru under Settlement Scheme No, VII. On 10-6-1974 he brought a suit for possession of the house against the petitioner alleging that the latter had forcefully occupied it. The suit was resisted by the petitioner who alleged that the house had been transferred to his father and that it did not belong to respondent. The trial Court decreed the suit and its judgment was upheld by the Additional District Judge in first appeal and by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2.In support of his case the respondent has produced the order of allotment of the house in his favour. In his plaint he has given the boundaries of the house. The petitioner alleged that the house in his occupation was not the same which had been transferred to the respondent. He also produced an order by which a house in Bhai Pheru had been transferred to his father. However, he led no evidence to show that the house transferred to his father was the same as the house in dispute. In the circumstances, we find no basis for interfering with the concurrent findings of the three Courts. Leave is refused.
Judges on this bench
- Shafi-ur-Rehman773 judgments
- Saad Saood Jan2,559 judgments