142/2010 Civil Revision Qamaruddin (Applicant) V/S Imdad Hussain (Respondent)
Sindh High Court
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar(Author)
Order Date: 14-SEP-18
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 9---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), Ss. 54 & 53-A---Suit for restoration of possession of immovable property---Plea of plaintiff was that defendant had forcibly occupied the suit land whereas defendant contended that he had purchased the suit plot through an oral agreement---Suit was dismissed concurrently being not maintainable---Validity---Plaintiff was in possession on the suit property---Defendant was bound to prove his possession on the suit land prior to the date of dispossession alleged by the plaintiff in his plaint---Defendant had failed to prove that he had purchased the suit land through an oral agreement---Plea not raised by a party in his pleadings could not be examined by the revisional court to set aside concurrent findings of facts---Defendant was in illegal possession on the suit property---Finding of Court could not be set aside by any subsequently created documents---Document which was withheld or not relied upon by the party could not be a basis for setting aside of concurrent findings of Courts below---Claim of plaintiff that he had purchased the suit property through an agreement of sale had been admitted by the owner of said property---Mere agreement of sale did not confer title on the buyer---One could still be lawful occupier of immovable property under a written agreement of sale without title document and such possession and ownership rights were protected under S. 53-A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882---Agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff had been proved as owner had admitted the same---Civil suit was to be decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence---Evidence produced by the plaintiff in support of his claim of possession of suit property had been confirmed by the owner of said land---Defendant had failed to establish his contrary claim agitated in his written statement---Courts below had failed to appreciate evidence on record while dismissing the suit being not maintain-able---Trial Court was not supposed to examine the title of suit property to maintain the present suit---Mere dispossession without consent of aggrieved party was enough to maintain the suit under S.9 of Specific Relief Act, 1877---Impugned judgments and decrees were set aside---Suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed to the extent that he was illegally dispossessed from the suit premises by the defendant---Defendant was directed to put the plaintiff in possession of suit property---Revision was allowed accordingly.Full judgment text for this case is not yet available on Pakistan Law Reports. Check the official Sindh High Court case law portal for the complete order.
This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.