MAQBOOL AHMAD and anothers vs MUNIR AHMAD and 3 others
This petition for leave to appeal arose from concurrent judgments of the lower courts, including a Civil Revision, which upheld a decree for the partition of land. The petitioners, who were co-sharers in the suit land, had contested the partition suit by asserting ownership of the entire property through adverse possession. The core legal question was whether a co-sharer can successfully claim adverse possession against other co-sharers regarding joint property without prior partition. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the petitioners failed to establish their claim. The Court held that a co-sharer cannot set up a plea of adverse possession against other co-sharers in the absence of a formal partition and the acquisition of exclusive possession of their respective shares. The key principle laid down is that co-sharers are legally considered to have joint possession of the property, and for one co-sharer to claim adverse possession, their entry into the shared portion must be demonstrably hostile and adverse, which was not proven in this instance.
- Can a co-sharer claim adverse possession against other co-sharers regarding joint property without a formal partition?
- Is the possession of co-sharers legally considered to be joint possession?
ORDER
' AJMAL MIAN, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 7-3-1993 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore Court at Bahawalpur Bench in Civil Revision No, 90- D of 1989 filed by the petitioners against the concurrent judgments of the two Courts below dated 8-8-1982 and 22-2-1983 of the learned Tehsildar/Assistant Collector Grade-I exercising the powers of Civil Judge and learned Additional District Judge, Rahimyar Khan in Suit No, Nil and Civil Appeal No, 46 of 1982, dismissing the same.
2. The brief facts are that the respondents filed an application for partition of suit land as the same was owned by them and the petitioners, before the above Revenue Officer, which was tried as a suit. The petitioners filed a written statement in which it was pleaded that they were the owners of the entire suit land by virtue of adverse possession. The above suit was decreed on 31-6-1979 but upon appeal, namely, Civil Appeal No, 179 of 1980, the same was remanded to the trial Court.
Thereupon, the above judgment was passed by the learned Tehsildar/Assistant Collector exercising the powers of the Civil Judge. Against the above judgment, the petitioners filed above Civil Appeal without any success and then above Civil Revision which also failed. The petitioners have, therefore, filed present petition for leave to appeal.
3. In support of the above petition Mr. MA. Zafar, learned ASC; appearing for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that the three Courts below were not justified in decreeing and maintaining the partition decree on the basis of the material on record.
There is a concurrent finding of all the Courts that the petitioners failed to prove their adverse possession. The plea of adverse possession by the petitioners, who were co-sharer in the suit land, against the respondents was not well-founded as no co-sharer without first partitioning of the property and without getting respective possession of their share can set up a plea of adverse possession. The entry of a co-sharer into the partition shared by his co-sharer should be adverse/hostile, otherwise the co-sharer cannot claim adverse possession against his other co- sharer as it is well-settled proposition of law that co-sharers are considered to have a joint possession.
4. The petition has no merits. Leave is refused.