S. 115--Specific Relief Act, (I of 1877), S. 9--Suit for possession--Decreed--Appeal--Dismissed--Purchasing of land--

 PLJ 2021 Lahore 517

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)--

----S. 115--Specific Relief Act, (I of 1877), S. 9--Suit for possession--Decreed--Appeal--Dismissed--Purchasing of land--Non-producing of document by petitioner in rebuttal of ownership of respondent--Concurrent findings--Challenge to--Revenue record (Ex.Pl) shows ownership of respondent over suit property but in rebuttal no document is produced by petitioner--Petitioner did not challenge title of respondent before any forum till to-date--When as per revenue record as well as admission of petitioner that R respondent is owner of suit property as such possession of petitioner would be that of permissive in nature and mere assertion that he constructed house from his own sources as far as 25 years back is not sustainable claim to declare him as owner of suit property--As such, Courts below rightly passed impugned judgments & decrees and no illegality has been committed--Counsel for petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or material irregularity in impugned judgments & decrees passed by Courts below and has also not identified any jurisdictional defect--Concurrent findings of fact are against petitioner which do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction in absence of any illegality or any other error of jurisdiction--Revision petition dismissed. [Pp. 518 & 519] A, B & C

2014 SCMR 1469 ref.

Mr. Sajjad Hussain Tarar, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Mehboob Rasool Awan, Advocate for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 29.9.2020.

 PLJ 2021 Lahore 517

Present: Ch. Muhammad Iqbal, J.

MUHAMMAD YOUSAF--Petitioner

versus

ALLAH DITTA--Respondent

C.R. No. 26126 of 2017, decided on 29.9.2020.

Order

Through this civil revision, the petitioner has challenged the legality of judgment & decree dated 22.06.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Malakwal whereby suit for recovery of possession through ejectment filed by the respondent was decreed and judgment & decree dated 10.04.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Malakwal who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the case as contained in the plaint are that the respondent/plaintiff purchased land measuring 12-Marlas from Allah Ditta situated at Mouza Rukkan and raised construction on the said plot. Muhammad Yousaf, petitioner/defendant who is his real brother being homeless requested for lending M him house for living. The respondent/plaintiff gave him house measuring 6 Marlas comprising of Khewat No. 889 Khatooni No. 2614 situated at Mouza Rukkan for temporary residence. He requires the petitioner to vacate the house and deliver the possession to him. On petitioner/defendant gainsayal, hence the suit under Section 8 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. Petitioner filed contesting written statement. Issues were framed and evidence was recorded. The learned trial Court vide judgment & decree dated 16.10.2015 decreed the suit filed by the respondent. The petitioner filed appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Malakwal vide judgment & decree dated 16.01.2016 and remanded the matter to the learned trial Court to frame the additional issue and decide the case afresh. In post remand proceedings, the learned trial Court again decreed the suit of the respondent vide judgment & decree dated 22.06.2016. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned appellate Court vide judgment & decree dated 10.04.2017. Hence, this civil revision.

3. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record with his able assistance.

4. Admittedly, the petitioner/defendant and respondent/ plaintiff are real brothers. The Revenue record (Ex.Pl) shows the ownership of the respondent over the suit property but in rebuttal no document is produced by the petitioner. When question confronted to the learned counsel whether any title of the suit property exists in the name of the petitioner he admitted non-existence of any title in the name pf the petitioner rather unequivocally admitted the ownership of the respondent over the suit property. Petitioner did not challenge the title of the respondent before any forum till to-date. When as per the revenue record as well as the admission of the petitioner that the respondent is owner of the suit property as such possession of the petitioner would be that of permissive in nature and mere assertion

that he constructed the house from his own sources as far as 25 years back is not sustainable claim to declare him as owner of the suit property. As such, the learned Courts below rightly passed the impugned judgments & decrees and no illegality has been committed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned judgments & decrees passed by the learned Courts below and has also not identified any jurisdictional defect. The concurrent findings of fact are against the petitioner which do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction in absence of any illegality or any other error of jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on the case titled as Mst. Zaitoon Begum vs. Nazar Hitssain & Another (2014 SCMR 1469).

6. In view of above, this civil revision is dismissed being devoid of any force with no order as to costs.

(Y.A.) Petition dismissed

99

2 shares

Like

Comment

Share