| Case ID |
e0662806-f8a4-4a1b-9484-0c4b54600b55 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Second Appeal No. 260 of 1951 |
| Decision Date |
Nov 27, 1952 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court ruled that Mughal was not in occupation of the land within the meaning of section 59 of the Tenancy Act. The court emphasized the importance of continuous occupation until death, indicating that the mere temporary occupation followed by abandonment does not meet the legal requirements for occupancy rights. The ruling highlighted that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently prove that Mughal's occupation was uninterrupted and continuous, which is essential for them to claim tenancy rights based on the ancestral claim. The appeal was accepted, and the suit was dismissed with costs. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the interpretation of the term 'occupied' as defined in section 59 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. The Lahore High Court examined the claims of Faiz Ali and others, who argued that they had inherited tenancy rights over a piece of land previously occupied by their common ancestor, Mughal. The judgment stressed the necessity of continuous occupation by the ancestor until death, thereby rejecting the plaintiffs' claim due to insufficient evidence of uninterrupted occupation. The case underscores the complexities involved in tenancy rights and the legal interpretations that can affect land ownership in Punjab. Keywords include Punjab Tenancy Act, occupancy rights, legal interpretations, land ownership, and inheritance claims. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
M. R. KAYANI, J
|
| Lawyers |
Sheikh Muhammad Shafi,
Sheikh Chiragh Din
|
| Petitioners |
FAIZ ALI and 10 others
|
| Respondents |
AHMAD DIN and 8 others
|
| Citations |
1953 SLD 58,
1953 PLD 126
|
| Other Citations |
Not available
|
| Laws Involved |
Punjab Tenancy Act, (XVI of 1887)
|
| Sections |
59
|