Possession follows the title. 2001 Lawvision 82 = PLD 2001 Lahore 390
K.D.A. plot– Whether petitioner was put in possession of plot–Question of–Two witnesses examined by petitioner have fully supported case of petitioner that actual physical possession was handed over to him by K.D.A–Even respondent’s own witness has stated in cross-examination that plaintiff was in unauthorised possession of suit plot–This admission shows that actual physical possession is with petitioner and there is no reason to disbelieve petitioner’s witnesses on this point–Held: Judgment of lower appellate court is based on evidence not on record and on grounds taken by respondent which in law could not have been urged–Petition accepted. PLJ 1993 Karachi 84
Whether possession and cultivation are coterminous–Question of–Both in law and common sense, possession and cultivation are two different things–A piece of land may be possessed without being cultivated for a particular crop or crops–In this case, fact of matter is that possession of petitioner over Khassa No.215/19 is established from Girdawari prior to Rabi 1973–Even in common sense, a tenant is not supposed to cultivate every bit of his tenancy in every crop–It would be preposterous to assume that moment a tenant leaves a piece of land under his possession as fallow, he loses his possession over it–Held: It is quite clear that concept of possession and concept of cultivation are two different things in law relating to tenancy. PLJ 1991 Revenue 14
Cosharer in possession of specific portion of joint property cannot he ousted till joint property is partitioned—Possession for long period” -Would not make any difference due to six months’ period of limitation prescribed for suit under S. 9. Specific Relief Act (I877). P L J 1980 Lahore 234
Dispossession forcibly—Two remedies for seeking redress —Suit under S 9,- Specific Relief Act (1877) and proceedings for partition of joint property—Third remedy that is ordinary suit for restoration of exclusive possession not warranted in law as that would place one set of cosharers in more advantageous position as compared with others. P L J 1980 Lahore 234
Each co owner interested in every portion of joint property and has right to he. in possession of over part of jointly with others-Every use of joint property by one co owner does not render him liable to legal action. P L J 1981 Lahore 62
Possession in joint property-Cosharer has right to reasonable enjoyment of joint property provided be does not interfere with it suitable ne by other cosharers Cosharer may legally alternate his own share out of undivided property. P L J 1981 Lahore 62)
Suit for possession of house—Defendant not filing written statement for about fourteen months—Trial Court closing defence and pronouncing judgment—Decree affirmed in first appeal-Second appeal—Held: that R. 10, O. 13, Civil P. C. (1908) does not contemplate pronouncement of judgment as only measure for it leaves Court with wide. discretion to make any other order—Judgment of Courts below set aside and case remanded to trial Court for proceeding in suit in absence of written statement. PLJ 1980 Lahore 66