| Case ID |
39835e55-808e-4048-b5c0-bd8bb24fcfd3 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Appeal No.581 of 2004 |
| Decision Date |
Nov 19, 2014 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The appeal was dismissed as the claim of adverse possession was not established. The concurrent findings of the appellate and revisional courts were upheld as they properly appreciated the evidence. The court noted that the appellants failed to prove open and hostile possession, which is essential for a claim of adverse possession. The decision emphasized that the claim of adverse possession could not stand as the appellants also made an alternate plea of tenancy rights, which contradicted their claim of adverse possession. The court reaffirmed the legal principles surrounding adverse possession, including the strong presumption of possession in favor of the rightful owner of barren and uncultivable land. The decision served to clarify the importance of meeting stringent criteria for establishing adverse possession, particularly in the context of the Limitation Act. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the claim of adverse possession by the appellants over agricultural land. The Supreme Court of Pakistan evaluated the legal principles surrounding adverse possession under the Limitation Act (IX of 1908). The court examined the historical context of the land in question and the claims made by both parties. The appellants contended that they had been in possession of the land since 1860, but their claim was challenged on various legal grounds, including the lack of evidence supporting their assertion of ownership through adverse possession. The court highlighted the necessity of proving open, hostile, and continuous possession to establish such a claim. It was determined that the appellants' alternate plea of tenancy rights undermined their adverse possession claim. The ruling reinforced the legal standards for adverse possession, particularly regarding the requirement for a court decree to validate such claims before a specified cutoff date. The final decision of the Supreme Court upheld the findings of the lower courts, emphasizing the importance of evidence in property disputes. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI,
AMIR HANI MUSLIM
|
| Lawyers |
Raja M. Ibrahim Satti, Senior Advocate Supreme Court,
Gulzarin Kiyani, Senior Advocate Supreme Court
|
| Petitioners |
MUHAMMAD AFSAR and others
|
| Respondents |
RAB NAWAZ (DECEASED) through L.Rs and others
|
| Citations |
2015 SLD 1361,
2015 SCMR 301
|
| Other Citations |
Ghulam Qadir v. Ahmed Yar PLD 1990 SC 1049,
Ghulam Mustafa v. Muhammad Yahya 2013 SCMR 684,
Maqbool Ahmed v. Hakoomat-e-Pakistan 1991 SCMR 2063,
Durrani v. Hamidullah Khan 2007 SCMR 480,
Jan Muhammad Khan v. Custodian of Evacuee Property, Lahore PLD 2009 SC 501
|
| Laws Involved |
Limitation Act (IX of 1908)
|
| Sections |
28
|