142/2010 Civil Revision Qamaruddin (Applicant) V/S Imdad Hussain (Respondent)

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.