2021 M L D 2046
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---
----S.8---Suit for possession ---Suit was filed without seeking declaration qua entitlement in the suit-property---Maintainability---Record revealed that the claim of tenancy of (part of) property-in-question of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners/plaintiffs was dismissed about forty years ago for want of proving the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; and Rent Controller observed that it could not determine the question of title and legitimacy of the documents, while respondent (alleged tenant in said eviction petition) also claimed right in the property-in-question being purchased by predecessor of the petitioners/plaintiffs---Notwithstanding said facts/background, petitioners filed a suit for possession simplicitor, without claiming declaration qua their entitlement or alleged legal right in the property , being the estate of their predecessor, when their entitlement regarding legal title in the property was challenged/disputed---Suit of possession filed by the petitioners was not maintainable, in circumstances---Appellate Court had rightly reversed the decree and judgment passed by the Trial Court in the favour of petitioner---Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
(b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---
L----Art. 64---Opinion of relationship when relevant---Petitioners / plaintiffs, on the basis of recorded inheritance mutations, sought their respective share in suit-property (estate of deceased), alleged to be their predecessor being distant kindered---Suit of the petitioners was dismissed and suit-property was declared as ownerless/escheated property by the Court---Held, that mutations-in-question were not proved through producing revenue record and official witnesses qua its execution/recording---Petitioners were required to prove factum of claimed relationship in accordance of Art. 64 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 but they utterly failed---No authentic / official pedigree table was produced in the evidence; one table was referred to in the plaint, which was admittedly drawn by one of the petitioners and the same would not be sufficient to establish factum of their entitlement and relationship---Mere mutation of inheritance was not sufficient to establish ownership---Parties claiming competing interests in the property kept their fight amongst themselves and strangely none of them ventured to produce official/revenue witnesses except one witness from Settlement Department---Said evidence could not be believed to form an opinion qua the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased, as no opinion/evidence was expressed by conduct in said regard by any member of the family or person having special means of knowledge as envisaged under Art. 64 of Qanun-e-Shahadat which was lacking---Mere random statements by witnesses were not sufficient to prove relationship---Even the witnesses were not asked about their source of information about relationship, and proof of relationship was left to chance/cross-examination---Appellate Court had rightly reversed the decree and judgment passed by the Trial Court in the favour of petitioners---No illegality was found in the impugned decree and judgment passed by the Appellate Court dismissing the suit of possession filed by the petitioners and declaring the suit-property as ownerless/escheated one---Appellate Court had rightly reserved the decree and judgment passed by the Trial Court in the favour of petitioners---Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
(c) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---
----Arts. 129(g) & 64---Competent witness---Scope---Opinion of relationship when relevant---Petitioners/plaintiffs ,on the basis of recorded inheritance mutations ,sought their respective share in suit-property (estate of deceased), alleged to be their predecessor being distant kindered---Suit of the petitioners was dismissed and suit-property was declared as ownerless/escheated property by the Court---One female as one of legal heirs of the deceased, was alive---Said female witness, being pertinent and best witness, was not produced as a witness, leading to adverse inference in terms of Art.129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Testimony of the other witnesses, claiming to be distant kindered, was inadequate to prove factum of relationship with the deceased---Mere reliance on inheritance mutations would neither establish ownership nor evidence of conduct to prove relationship---Petitioners could not be permitted to resort to pick and choose for relying merely on that part of the evidence favouring them and overlooking detrimental evidence, such piecemeal appraisal was not permissible---Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
(d) Constitution of Pakistan---
----Art.172---Ownerless/escheated property---Ownerless/escheated property vests in the Provincial Government in terms of Art. 172 of the Constitution.
0 comments:
Post a Comment