Sheikh Anwar-ul-Haq vs Abdul Ghaffar Ss — 2026 MLD 175 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

Sheikh Anwar-ul-Haq VS Abdul Ghaffar Ss.8 & 42---Qanun-e-Shahadat, (10 of 1984), Art.113---Suit for declaration and possession---Allotment of shops by Municipal Corporation---Defendant alleging plaintiff to be a benami allottee of shop---Burden of proof---Defendant/asserting party failing to discharge onus---Effect---Admissions in pleadings---Defendant admitting in his written statement that shop was allotted to petitioner/plaintiff --- Admitted facts need not be proved---Principle---Essence and scope of S.42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 emphasized---"Title" and "entitlement"---Distinction --- Brief facts were that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and recovery of possession regarding suit property i.e. shop claiming it was allotted in his name during a municipal survey, while respondent No. 1 (petitioner's/ plaintiff's real brother) was allotted adjoining shop---Both the Trial court and the appellate court dismissed his suit, prompting him to institute the present civil revision---The record showed that the municipal corporation confirmed the allotment of suit property in the petitioner's/plaintiff's name, whereas the dispute between the brothers centered on who held the genuine entitlement to the suit property/shop---Core issue for determination before the High Court was as to "Whether, under S.42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, the petitioner/plaintiff could lawfully be declared entitled to suit property/shop and recover possession when the allotment stood in his name which fact was not denied by the municipal authority, but was disputed by his brother claiming benami allotment"?---Held: It was evident from the written statement filed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 that there was an admission regarding allotment in the name of petitioner/plaintiff---Allotment in the name of petitioner/plaintiff had not been denied but a specific plea was taken that petitioner was "benami" allottee and respondent/defendant in alternate spent money and got him a shop but did not bother to prove his plea taken in the written statement---Both the courts below failed to read the pleadings as well as evidence of parties and also failed to apply Art.113 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 which provided that "admitted facts need not to be proved"---It was clear from the record that the petitioner/plaintiff was the allottee of the suit property/shop---Both the courts below failed to interpret and evaluate the words "title" and "entitle" in its true perspective while judging the case between two competitors i.e. petitioner and respondent No.1---While doing so, both the courts below mis-interpreted the said expressions due to which petitioner was non-suited---Respective allotments in favour of petitioner and respondent No.1 were their entitlement and right and equated title as they could sell/transfer their allotment rights to any person by definitely informing the City District Government which was owner of the suit property---Judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below were result of mis-reading and non-reading of record and were not sustainable in the eye of law and same were set aside---Suit filed by the petitioner for declaration and possession was decreed---Present civil revision petition was partially allowed, in circumstances.

Sheikh Anwar-ul-Haq vs Abdul Ghaffar Ss — 2026 MLD 175 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 MLD