KHURSHID ALI vs MIANGUL ADNAN AURANGZEB (deceased) S — 2025 SCMR 34 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.

KHURSHID ALI VS MIANGUL ADNAN AURANGZEB (deceased) S.8---Suit for recovery of possession and mesne profit---Declaration, non-seeking of---Defective title of opponent---Effect---Respondents/ plaintiffs sought recovery of possession of suit property and mesne profit on the plea of their ownership---Trial Court dismissed the suit but Lower Appellate Court decreed the same in favour of respondents/ plaintiffs---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction maintained judgment and decree in favour of respondents/plaintiffs but dismissed the suit to the extent of recovery of mesne profit---Validity---Respondents/plaintiffs had no title, and those under whom they claimed also had no title, and the very gift of disputed shops never existed---Respondents/plaintiffs failed to establish their ownership or title to suit property---Respondents/plaintiffs could not call upon appellants/ defendants to establish legitimacy of their property title, nor could they seek a decree for possession based on claims that appellants/defendants either lacked a title or possessed a flawed one---Respondents/plaintiffs were to succeed based solely on the strength and validity of their own title rather than capitalizing on any potential shortcomings of the situation of appellants/defendants---Trial Court was precluded from examining validity of the title of appellants/defendants, particularly since respondents/plaintiffs did not formally challenge the same---Simple suit for possession filed by respondents/appellants was not maintainable---Despite appellants'/defendants' assertions in their written statement, respondents/plaintiffs did not take any step to seek declaration of title---Supreme Court declined to affirm judgment and decree passed by High Court as such oversight went unaddressed---Respondents/plaintiffs did not demonstrate necessary diligence in pursuing their suit and failed to call any witnesses to substantiate alleged gift transaction, which significantly weakened their position---Solitary statement provided by attorney of respondents/plaintiffs was insufficient to support their claims, particularly since it did not effectively demonstrate that appellants/defendants, as licensees, had possession of shops in question---Rationale behind demand of respondents/plaintiffs for mesne profits of Rs.10,000 per month was not adequately established and there was lack of tangible evidence to justify such figure---Appellants/plaintiffs did not provide credible basis for seeking eviction of appellants/defendants from shops in question---Supreme Court dismissed suit filed by respondents/plaintiffs resultantly decrees issued by High Court and Lower Appellate Court were set aside and that of Trial Court was restored---Appeal was allowed.

KHURSHID ALI vs MIANGUL ADNAN AURANGZEB (deceased) S — 2025 SCMR 34 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 SCMR