1989 SCMR 842 Concurrent Findings of Fact of Courts Below Could Not Be Interfered With There Being No Material On Record To Show That Said Conditions Were Fulfilled
0 penilaian0% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (0 suara)
42 tayangan2 halaman
Defendants in a Civil Suit seek leave to appeal against the concurrent judgments of the three Courts with regard to their title to the disputed land. Their contention in the Civil Suit was that under an Adhlapi agreement they had acquired a share in the two Khatas belonging to the plaintiffs / respondents. The mutation had been entered and attested in 1937 and necessary corrections in it made in 1949.
Deskripsi Asli:
Judul Asli
1989 SCMR 842 Concurrent Findings of Fact of Courts Below Could Not Be Interfered With There Being No Material on Record to Show That Said Conditions Were Fulfilled
Defendants in a Civil Suit seek leave to appeal against the concurrent judgments of the three Courts with regard to their title to the disputed land. Their contention in the Civil Suit was that under an Adhlapi agreement they had acquired a share in the two Khatas belonging to the plaintiffs / respondents. The mutation had been entered and attested in 1937 and necessary corrections in it made in 1949.
0 penilaian0% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (0 suara)
42 tayangan2 halaman
1989 SCMR 842 Concurrent Findings of Fact of Courts Below Could Not Be Interfered With There Being No Material On Record To Show That Said Conditions Were Fulfilled
Defendants in a Civil Suit seek leave to appeal against the concurrent judgments of the three Courts with regard to their title to the disputed land. Their contention in the Civil Suit was that under an Adhlapi agreement they had acquired a share in the two Khatas belonging to the plaintiffs / respondents. The mutation had been entered and attested in 1937 and necessary corrections in it made in 1949.
AZIZ ULLAH and 11 others--Petitioners versus RASOOL BAKHSH and 29 others--Respondents Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.103 of 1989, decided on 29th January, 1989. (From the judgment of Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur dated 14-12-1988 passed in Civil Revision No.86 of 1975/BWP.) Punjab Settlement Manual-- --- Para. 173--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Acquisition of share in specific Khatas under Adhlapi agreement--Plea of--Proof--Adhlapi mutation could be attested only on proof of two conditions; that in crucial year a well had been sunk in any of the disputed Khatas and that land had been brought under cultivation--Concurrent findings of fact of Courts below could not be interfered with there being no material on record to show that said conditions were fulfilled--Petition being devoid of merit, leave to appeal was refused. Ejaz Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 29th January, 1989. ORDER SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The defendants in a Civil Suit seek leave to appeal against the concurrent judgments of the three Courts with regard to their title to the disputed land. Their contention in the civil suit was that under an Adhlapi agreement they had acquired a share in the two Khatas belonging to the plaintiffs/respondents and the mutation had been entered and attested in 1937 and necessary corrections in it made in 1949. It was not, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, open to the plaintiffs to have agitated after such a long period when the mutation stood incorporated in the Jamabandi to challenge those and to have succeeded. The finding of fact recorded by the Courts will be apparent from the following conclusions drawn by the High Court in the following terms:-- "After having heard the parties and perused the record and discussed the lower Courts' judgments the conclusion is that, firstly there was no Adhlapi agreement between the parties for the same has not been proved in any manner whatsoever, that if it is conceded for arguments sake that there was one, then the same agreement was not fulfilled as no well was sunk nor land made cultivable; secondly, that there was no evidence to establish the possession of the suit land by the petitioners/defendants to establish their case of adverse possession. On the contrary the documents relied upon by the said party i.e. Exh.D.2 to Exh.D.7 and Exh.D.15 to Exh. D.18 itself states that the land was Banjar Qadeem, therefore, the presumption in law and fact is that the original " owners namely plaintiffs/respondents were in possession. Thirdly, that the entries in the impugned mutation Exh.D.3 itself gives rise to graved doubts about its validity and genuineness and in any case the said mutation entries have not been proved or corroborated by any evidence. Fourthly, that the limitation in the present case starts from the date when the petitioners/defendants threatened to interfere with the ownership and possession of respondents/plaintiffs and therefore, the suit was within time and it was rightly so held by the concurrent judgements of the learned lower Courts. 18. It shall be pertinent to point out here that the learned counsel for the petitioners could not show any misreading or non-reading of the evidence nor did he refer to any of the two judgments of the learned lower Courts to point out any material irregularity or illegality committed. He furthermore did not challenge any of the authorities relied upon by the learned Courts below to support their findings and his contention that none of the plaintiffs had appeared is belied by the testimony of P.W.1 plaintiff No.2. The case law cited by him is either irrelevant or fails to support his contentions as discussed and pointed out earlier. Whereas the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the respondents are relevant, to the point and fully support his plea that no case is made out for interference under the revisional jurisdiction in the present case:' The learned counsel was asked to show whether there was any material on the record to sustain a conclusion that in 1937 a well had been sunk in either of the two Khatas and the land had been brought under cultivation because it was only on the satisfaction of these two conditions that the Adhlanni mutation could be attested in their favour. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any such material. In the circumstances, no case is made out for leave to appeal and the same is refused. A.A./A-425/S Leave to appeal refused.
2000 S C M R 1321 -Dismissal From Service---Regular Inquiry Not Held---Service Tribunal Had Rightly Concluded That Dismissal of Civil Servant From Service and Subsequent Reduction in Punishment Were Violative of Dictum
1998 P L C CS 221 - Constitutional Petition - Employee of Statutory Body - Termination of Service Without Show-Cause Notice and Without Affording Opportunity of Being Heard
1996 S C M R 1185 - Rule of Good Governance Demand That The Benefit of Such Judgment by Service Tribunal-Supreme Court Be Extended To Other Civil Servants Who May Not Be Parties To The Litigation
1996 P L C CS 433 - Statutory Rules National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Services Rules Were First Promulgated in Year 1973 and Subsequently in Year 1980 Rules of 1980
1996 S C M 8413 - IRREGULAR Appointment Service Tribunal Having Re Instated Civil Servant Could Not Be Deemed To Have Committed Any Illegality or Irregularity