Mst. OMAI AND Othress vs HAKEEM KHAN AND Other
This matter arises from a dispute over the estate of Amar Din, who died in 1912, involving a claim for possession of a one-third share by his son Hakeem Khan. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioners had established adverse possession over the suit land for the requisite statutory period of over twelve years. The Senior Sub-Judge, Bannu, initially dismissed the suit, finding the petitioners to be in adverse possession. However, the District Judge, Derajat, and subsequently the High Court of West Pakistan, Peshawar Bench, concurrently held that the possession of the petitioners was not proved to be adverse to the knowledge of the plaintiff, thus decreeing the suit and dismissing the second appeal. The Supreme Court considered the petition for special leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of fact regarding adverse possession. The Court upheld the judgments of the lower appellate and high courts, reinforcing the principle that a party claiming adverse possession must establish it clearly to the knowledge of the rightful owner.
- Whether the burden of proving adverse possession lies on the person claiming it against the rightful owner?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding adverse possession be disturbed in second appeal without showing perversity?
- Whether a suit for possession of inheritance is barred by time when adverse possession is not proved to the knowledge of the plaintiff?
ORDER
1. WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-The dispute between the parties is in respect of property left by one Amar Din. Amar Din died in the year 1912. He was survived by his four sons, namely, Hakeem Khan, Fazal Khan, Abbas Khan and Izzat Khan. Abbas Khan died issueless. Hakeem Khan had left in the life time of his father, Amar Din. On his return to his village, a year before the institution of the suit, he demanded his 1/3rd share out of the property left by his father. This claim was resisted. He, therefore, filed a suit for possession of his 1/3rd share in the said property. The learned Senior Sub- Judge, Bannu, by judgment dated the 12th December 1959, held that the respon--dent Hakeem Khan was the son of Amar Din. He further held that the petitioners were in adverse possession of the suit land for over 12 years and dismissed the suit. On appeal, the learned District Judge, Derajat, by judgment dated. The 13th June 1960, held that the petitioners have not shown that their possession was adverse to the knowledge of Hakeem Khan and, therefore, the suit of the plaintiffs ought to have been decreed. He, there--fore, accepted the appeal. Petitioners challenged this judgment in Regular Second Appeal No. 277/187 of 1960, before the High Court of West Pakistan, Peshawar Bench. The High Court, by judgment dated the 11th November 1969, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the petitioners have failed to show that they were in adverse possession of the property in dispute. The petitioners seek special leave to file an appeal against the said judgment. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 11 cases
- KHAIR MUHAMMAD KHATIAN Versus LIAQUAT ALI G. KAZI 2017 CLCN 177
- ABDUL KHALIQ SHAIKH Versus SEEMA MASOOD 2009 CLC 131
- ROSHAN AKHTAR Versus MUHAMMAD BOOTA 2000 SCMR 1845
- ABDUL KAQIR Versus MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM , Memo 1998 PLD 12
- Mrs. SHAMIM ARA OMRAO through her attorney vs Qazi SAEED AKBAR and another 1999 CLC 1826
- Mst. SUGHRAN BIBI vs Mst. HURMAT BIBI Through Legal Heirs 1989 MLD 455
- MST.SUGHRAN BIBI vs HUSMAT BIBI K.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 61
- FATEH SHER And ANOTHER vs SHARIF KHATOON And 3 OTHER 1986 CLC 320
- WASSAN AND 21 OTHERS vs HASSAN AND 6 OTHERS 1977 PLD Lahore 429
- NOOR AHMAD vs Mst. HUBAB JAN AND 9 Other 1974 PLD Supreme Court 78
- Khair Muhammad Khatian and others vs Liaquat Ali G. Kazi and others