JAM BALLI alias WALI through Legal Heirs and others vs MEHAR KHAN
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that affirmed the dismissal of the petitioners' suit for declaration of title. The petitioners had claimed ownership of land based on an alleged oral sale and, alternatively, on the basis of adverse possession. The trial court, the first appellate court, and the High Court all concurrently found that the petitioners failed to provide adequate evidence to prove a lawful sale. Furthermore, the record indicated that the petitioners were registered as 'Ghair Dakheelkar' (tenants-at-will) in the Jamabandi Register since 1937-38. The core legal question was whether a tenant-at-will could claim title against the real owner through adverse possession. The Supreme Court held that in law, a tenant cannot raise a plea of title against the real owner. Consequently, the Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts, finding no legal, factual, or jurisdictional error, and dismissed the petition, refusing leave to appeal.
- Can a tenant-at-will claim title to property against the real owner through adverse possession?
- Does the status of 'Ghair Dakheelkar' in the Jamabandi Register preclude a claim of ownership by adverse possession?
' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.---Petitioners seek leave to appeal against Lahore High Court judgment, dated 23-6-1999 in Civil Revision No.381-D of 1983 dismissing the same and affirming the judgments and decrees by the trial Court as well as First Appellate Court.
2. Petitioners filed a suit for declaration of title on the basis of oral sale and alternatively for ownership on the basis of adverse possession. At the trial they could not establish the same, as there was no adequate evidence to prove any lawful sale in their favour. Likewise, they could not substantiate their claim of adverse possession with the consequence that the suit as also the appeal did not succeed. Their civil revision also did not bear fruit, hence this petition.
3. On petitioners' counsel's own statement, petitioners have been recorded as `Ghair Dakheelkar' in the Jamabandi Register since 1937-38, which would reflect that they were tenants-at-will. In law, a tenant cannot raise the plea of title against real owner, therefore, in our considered view, the petitioners were legally not entitled to a decree with regard to their title on the basis of adverse possession. There are concurrent findings by three Courts below, including the High Court, which do not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity or jurisdictional error. We, therefore, do. Not find any merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused. 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.