GHULAM HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD DIN
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which decreed the respondent's suit for possession through the removal of an unauthorized superstructure on the suit-land. The core legal question concerned whether the respondent could claim exclusive ownership of the property, alleged by the petitioner to be 'Shamlaat Deh' without impleading all village inhabitants. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact established that the property was originally purchased by the respondent's father, inherited by the respondent and his brother, and supported by revenue records showing lawful possession. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that no interference was warranted and no substantial question of law of public importance was involved, affirming the principle that concurrent findings of fact based on revenue records and inheritance regarding lawful possession will not be disturbed in leave to appeal.
- Whether a plaintiff can claim exclusive ownership of property without impleading all village inhabitants when the property is alleged to be Shamlaat Deh?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding lawful possession and inheritance based on revenue records?
- Is a suit for possession through removal of superstructure maintainable when ownership and lawful possession are established by evidence?
' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.---The petitioner seeks the grant of leave to appeal from judgment, dated 5-3-2002 passed by the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No.1262 of 1999.
2. The respondent filed a suit against the petitioner for possession through removal of superstructure of the suit-land measuring 1 Marla in that he was owner of the land of which the petitioner had unauthorisedly taken the possession and raised construction thereon. The civil suit of the respondent was decreed by the Civil Court by its judgment and decree, dated 28-3-1990.
The appeal of the petitioner was accepted and the civil suit was dismissed by order, dated 12-12- 1994 of the Additional District Judge, Mandi Bahauddin. However, Civil Revision No.419-D of 1995 filed by the respondent was allowed by the Lahore High Court on 3-3-1999 and the appeal was remanded to be decided afresh by the Additional District, Judge in the light of the observations made by the High Court. The Additional District Judge by judgment, dated 31-5-1999 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner which was affirmed by the 'Lahore High Court by the impugned judgment, dated 5-3-2002.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent could not claim any rights in the property which was owned by all the inhabitants of the village unless all those persons were impleaded as a party in the proceedings. The respondent had failed to prove ownership of the property or the private partition with his brother nor any evidence was led in this regard. The property being 'Shamlaat Deh' the respondent could not claim any exclusive right of ownership of any portion of the same.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. All the three Courts have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the property in dispute had been originally purchased by the father of the respondent on whose death the respondent and his brother inherited the rights of the deceased therein. The civil suit for possession through pre-emption filed against the father of the respondent in respect of the suit property had also been dismissed by the Civil Court (Exh.P.14).
The Revenue Record produced in evidence in this case also clearly shows that originally the father of the respondent and then the respondent was in lawful possession of the suit property regardless of its nature. The impugned judgment of the High Court affirming the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below does not call for any interference in the facts and circumstances of the case. The civil suit of respondent against the petitioner for possession of the, suit property by removal of the superstructure constructed thereon unauthorisedly was rightly decreed. No substantial question of law of public importance is involved in this case.
5. This petition is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.