Ghulam Nabi vs Umar Bakhsh - 1941 Supreme(Lah) 140

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1941 Supreme(Lah) 140

TEK CHAND
Ghulam Nabi – Appellant
Versus
Umar Bakhsh – Respondent

JUDGMENT

Tek Chand, J. - The dispute in this case relates to two fields, Nos. 485 and 457/2, which formed part of the village shamilat and which, on partition, had been allotted by the revenue officer to the defendant. The plaintiffs alleged that khasra No. 457/2 was in the exclusive possession of Fajja and khasra No, 435 of Allah Ditta, who were proprietors in the village, that Eajja and Allah Ditta sold these specific numbers to the plaintiffs more than 12 years ago, that they had acquired title by adverse possession and that these fields were not liable to partition. They, therefore, sued for a declaration of their title and also prayed for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with their possession.

2. The defendant, Ghulam Nabi, denied the plaintiffs' claim. The suit was dismissed by the trial Judge. On appeal the learned Senior Subordinate Judge has held that the alleged sale of khasra No. 435 by Allah Ditta to the plaintiffs has not been proved, nor have the plaintiffs been in possession for more than 12 years. He has accordingly maintained the lower Court's decree, dismissing the suit relating to this field. As regards khasra No, 457/2, however, he

Click Here to Read the rest of this document