MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs MATI UR REHMAN Ss — 2022 SCMR 859 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS MATI UR REHMAN Ss. 9, 42 & 54---Suit for possession and permanent injunction---Maintainability---Dispute over ownership of property---Plaintiffs and defendant both claiming title to disputed property---In such circumstances, the plaintiffs were supposed to establish their title first by filing a suit for declaration along with possession of the property as a consequential relief as the defendant was admittedly in possession of the plot and further establish the fact that the plot in possession of the defendant was situated in the khasra claimed by the plaintiffs---Merely filing a suit for permanent injunction, in the given circumstances, was not maintainable and could not encompass the claim of plaintiffs---Appeal was allowed. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 859 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS MATI UR REHMAN S. 117---Land Revenue Rules, 1968, R. 67-A---Dispute over ownership of property---Plaintiffs and defendant both claiming title to disputed property---As per report of the Local Commissioner, the suit house was situated in Khasra mentioned by the plaintiffs but record of the case reflected that the said conclusion by the Local Commissioner was made on the basis of statement/version of the Patwari Halqa accompanying him at the time of spot inspection---Such type of oral version, in absence of proper proof of the fact, could in no way be considered as a poof required under the Land Revenue Act, 1967---If it was established that the suit house admittedly owned, possessed and constructed by the defendant was situated in the khasra claimed by the plaintiffs then that khasra as per revenue record produced by the Patwari was part and parcel of Shamlat Deh which was jointly owned by the persons whose names appeared in the proprietary body of the village (proprietary body of the village is a body of persons who are already owners of the agricultural land in the village)---Plaintiffs could lay hand on this khasra number as owner if it was established on the record that their names appeared in the proprietary body and they are/were in physical possession of this khasra number prior to the purchase of defendant; they would also be obliged to prove their dispossession either by the vendor of the defendant or the defendant himself---Besides, it should also have been established through cogent and reliable evidence that the property in dispute was part and parcel of Shamlat Deh---Entire exercise done by the Local Commissioner as well as the evidence produced by the plaintiffs during trial did not reflect that the suit house was situated in the khasra mentioned by the plaintiffs being part of Shamlat land---No proper demarcation of the property was carried out comprising Shamlat Deh and specifically the khasra in question---Revenue record produced by the Patwari Halqa and Sadar Office Qanungo during the trial, would in no way help out the plaintiffs to establish their case unless the facts were established through demarcation on the spot---In absence of such evidence, the documents so produced would have no evidentiary value---Original mutation of the vendor of the plaintiffs had not been produced---Mere reference of the mutation in the record of rights, was not sufficient to establish title of plaintiffs---Record produced by the defendant from the proper lawful custody with his possession at the spot was sufficient to hold him owner of the house in question---Such exercise could have been done by the revenue officer to define the boundaries of a estate or khasra number under section 117 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 or demarcation of the property in question under Rule 67-A of Land Revenue Rules, 1968---Proper location of a khasra number was not possible without such exercise---Record of the case would reflect that no such exercise was made in the present case---Appeal was allowed and suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed. Head NotesCase Description

MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs MATI UR REHMAN Ss — 2022 SCMR 859 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 SCMR