Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 1994 SCMR 1119
Court / Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of Pakistan
Year of Decision: 1993
Decision Date: 1993-12-31
This judicial decision was delivered by the Supreme Court of Pakistan on 1993-12-31. The matter involves proceedings between Petitioner and Respondent, officially reported as 1994 SCMR 1119. The court reviewed applicable Pakistani statutes, procedural requirements, and governing case-law authorities. The full text below contains the complete facts, arguments, and legal reasoning rendered by the honorable bench.
Case cited as 1994 SCMR 1119
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s):Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, Nasim Hasan Shah, Manzoor Hussain Sial, Wali
JUDGMENT
Reported As: 1994 SCMR 1119 Result: Petition dismissed Judgment JUDGMENT ' WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.---Muhammad Azim Khan and others, petitioners herein, call in question the judgment dated 23-5-1992 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench D.I.Khan, whereby their revision petition against the judgments of the trial Court dated 2-7-1989 decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents against them and that of the appellate Court dated 14-7-1990 dismissing their appeal, was dismissed. ' The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the plaintiffs /respondents Faizullah Khan and others, plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 11, filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they along with respondents 4 to 53 were owners of the suit land and that defendants 1 to 3, petitioners herein, have no right or interest therein and that the order of the Ilaqa Magistrate dated 4-7-1979 attaching the suit property under section 146 Cr.P.C. Is wrong, illegal, and ineffective on their rights; that if the plaintiffs/respondents are not held to be in possession then they are entitled to the relief of possession; and also for the issuance of permanent mandatory injunction directing the defendants/petitioners not to interfere in the suit land. According to the averments made in the plaint the suit land is situated in the estate of village Kakki, its kind "Ghair Mumkin Loora" in the possession of Irrigators and Mahazi Malikan i,e., contiguous owners and that the plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 11 being owners of the contiguous property in the estate in question towards south are in law deemed to be owners of the suit land, whereas the defendants/petitioners claiming to be owner by purchase in the estate of village Landidak through purchase have no right to claim the ownership rights therein, that the dispute arose between them over the suit land which
---
## Page 2
led to the proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. And the learned Magistrate ultimately attached the suit land under section 146 Cr.P.C. Directing the parties to approach the civil Court for the redressal of their grievances. Hence the necessity to file the suit arose. The defendants/petitioners contested the suit and in their written statement denied the claim of the plaintiffs and claimed ownership in the suit land on the basis of title as well as adverse possession for more than 12 years, besides raising certain technical objections. Necessary issues in the case were framed, evidence led pro and contra thereon recorded and the learned trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 2-7- 1989, decreed the suit and the appeal and revision filed by the defendants/petitioners were also dismissed vide judgments and decrees dated 14-7-1990 and 23-5-1992, respectively. Hence the instant petition for leave to appeal. ' We have heard Mr. Saeed Baig, Advocate for the petitioners, and have perused the record of the case. ' Admittedly, the suit land is part of the estate of Kakki village and the defendants/petitioners are not owners of any area in this estate. However, they are owners of the contiguous property to the suit land towards the other side (North) but their ownership land is part of a different estate, namely, Landidak Qasuria. The suit land is recorded as the ownership of Mahazi Malikan viz., contiguous owners. The question for determination before the lower Courts as well as in the instant petition is whether the owner of a different estate owning land contiguous to the suit property can be considered as owner in the estate in which they have no proprietary rights. All the lower three forums have concurrently held that the interpretation of the Mahazi Malikan could not be extended to the contiguous owners of different estate. The interpretation placed by the learned lower forums is perfectly reasonable and appealing to commonsense. While preparing a record of rights the settlement officers are concerned only with the proprietary rights of the owners of the estate and not the persons having no rights in the estate in question. We do not find any jurisdictional error or legal flaw in the judgments of the lower three forums and decline leave to appeal. ' Resultantly, finding no merit in the instant petition, the same is dismissed.