MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs ABDUL HAKEEM
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment passed by the Lahore High Court maintaining a decree for possession granted in favour of the respondent. The core legal question concerns the burden of proof regarding the ownership and sale of the disputed property when the plaintiff's initial title is admitted by the defendant, but the defendant sets up a plea of a sale in favour of a third party. The Supreme Court held that once the initial title of the plaintiff is admitted and the defendant fails to prove the alleged sale to a third party or clarify the nature of his own possession, the decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff is properly granted. The key principle laid down is that a defendant admitting the plaintiff's initial title must substantiate any plea of a third-party sale, failing which the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession.
- What is the burden of proof on a defendant who admits the plaintiff's title to a property but claims it was sold to a third party?
- Does failure to produce the alleged third-party purchaser as a witness invalidate a defendant's plea of sale?
- Is a plaintiff entitled to a decree for possession when the initial title is admitted and the defendant's possession is unexplained?
' SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal aginst the judgment, dated 16- 6-1999 passed in Civil Revision No,1016 of 1995 by an Hon'ble Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court, whereby the decree granted in favour of Abdul Hakeem respondent by the First Appellate Court was maintained.
2. Abdul Hakeem respondent filed a suit against Muhammad Sharif petitioner for possession of the disputed house. Muhammad Sharif defended the suit on the' ground that though the house was owned by Abdul Hakeem yet it was sold by him in favour of one Muhammad Sadiq. The suit after trial being dismissed by the trial Court was decreed in appeal and the same was maintained by the High Court through the impugned judgment.
3. By taking the plea that Abdul Hakeem had already sold the house to one Muhammad Sadiq the title of Abdul Hakeem is admitted. Once the ownership of Abdul Hakeem is admitted, the sale in favour of Muhammad Sadiq remained to be proved by the defendant. Defendant Muhammad Sharif has miserably failed to prove the sale by Abdul Hakeem in favour of Muhammad Sadiq, so much so that he has not even produced Muhammad Sadiq as his witness. Muhammad Sadiq, on his part, has never come forward to claim title in any independent proceedings. The defendant has failed to mention as to who inducted him in the suit property, as to what is the nature of his possession and whether he is paying any rent to any person. This is particularly relevant when he does not claim the title himself.
4. In the circumstances, when the initial title of Abdul Hakeem is admitted, sale in favour of Muhammad Sadiq is not proved and the nature of possession of Muhammad Sharif is not clarified, the two Courts below have rightly granted the decree in favour of Abdul Hakeem respondent. There being no merit in the petition, it is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.