Al Wakeelo logo

Al Wakeelo

Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty

Initializing Secure Chambers

1991 SCMR 1987

Syed DOST MUHAMMAD vs JEENAND And Another

Petitioner: Syed DOST MUHAMMAD VS Respondent: JEENAND And Another

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan Decision Date: 1991-06-02

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry Title: Syed DOST MUHAMMAD vs JEENAND And Another Case No.: Civil Petition No.90-Q of 1990 Civil Revision No.109 of 1990 Date of Judgment:1991-06-02 Reported As: 1991 SCMR 1987 Result: Leave refused

Judgment ORDER ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J: --Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the High Court dated 16-8-1990. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the land in dispute against the respondents on the ground that the disputed property is ancestral property of the petitioner and the respondents were inducted as tenant-at-will but without any knowledge of the petitioner. The entries in the Revenue Record in favour of the respondents have been made as Lath Buad Bazgars (occupancy tenants). The respondents contested the suit. The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner on 18-12-1989. The respondent No.1's appeal was accepted by Majlis-i-Shoora on 10-4-1990. The petitioner's revision petition was dismissed by the High Court. The High Court after the assessment of the evidence has observed that the respondents are in cultivatory occupation of the suit land for the last several years. The evidence also suggests that certain Laths have also been made by them. Therefore, on merits, the petitioner was not able to prove his case. 3. The entries are in favour of the respondents. There is no entry that the respondents are tenants- at-will. There is also no evidence that they were inducted as tenants by the petitioner. The petitioner has led sketchy evidence which has been disbelieved by the two Courts. There are concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner. No ground exists for interference by this Court. This petition has no force. The same is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.

Related Legal Research & Directories