Pakistan Case LawMUHAMMAD SHARIF and 4 others Versus BHOLU and 17 others
The petitioners instituted two declaratory suits claiming ownership of specific land shares based on adverse possession and challenging a redemption claim concerning a mortgage created in 1911, respectively. Both suits were dismissed by the trial Court, and subsequent appeals before the Additional District Judge and the High Court were also dismissed. The petitioners sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Supreme Court held that co-sharers cannot claim adverse possession against other co-sharers in the absence of satisfactory evidence of ouster. Furthermore, the Court upheld the finding that the respondents' claim of ownership through unredeemed mortgage within the limitation period remained unrefuted by the petitioners. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed both petitions for lack of merit, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
- Can a co-sharer claim ownership of land through adverse possession against other co-sharers without satisfactory evidence of ouster?
- Whether the failure to redeem a mortgage within the period of limitation vests ownership rights in the mortgagee's successors?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, ACTG. C J.---The petitioners brought two declaratory suits against the respondents. In one (C.P. No, 411 of 1993) they claimed that they were owners to the extent of 5/64th share in Khata No, 15 in the Jamabandi for the year 1966-67 relating to village Alipur of Tehsil Ferozewala. In the other (CP No, 412 of 1993) they claimed that they were the owners of 90 Kanals and 11 Marlas of land in Khata No, 9 of the same village,. The suits were resisted by the respondents. Both suits were dismissed by the trial Court and the petitioners' appeal before the Additional District Judge failed. They then filed second appeals in the High Court but these too were dismissed. They now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
2.So far as C.P. No, 411-L/93 is concerned it is contended that the petitioners had become owners of the shares in the land claimed by them on account of adverse possession. This plea was examined by the High Court at some length and rejected with the observations that the petitioners being co- sharers along with the respondents could not claim adverse possession. The view taken by the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity. It need hardly be pointed out that there is no satisfactory evidence with regard to the ouster of the respondents. In CP No, 412-L/93 the respondents claimed to have become owners of the property in dispute as the forefathers of the petitioners failed to redeem mortgage created in their predecessor's favour in 1911 within the period of limitation. The petitioners were unable to successfully refute the claim of the respondents. The two petitions are without any merit and are hereby dismissed.
Judges on this bench
- Manzoor Hussain Sial807 judgments