Possession Prevails: Quetta High Court Dismisses Declaration Suit Due to Lack of Possessory Title – 2024 YLR 2757.
تعارف:
کیس کا پس منظر:
عدالت کے مشاہدات اور ریمارکس:
عدالت کا فیصلہ:
قانونی سبق:
Must read the Judgement
In pari delicto, potior est conditio possidentis When both parties are equally at fault, the law favors the party in possession.
2024 YLR 2757
QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Ss. 8, 42 & 54. Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.126. Suit for Declaration and possession. Counter claim of ownership of the disputed land. Failure of petitioners to prove possessory title. Admission of petitioners as to respondents' possession on the disputed land. Lack of explanation for purchase without possession. 'In pari delicto, potior est conditio possidentis" principle of. Concealment of material facts before the Court. Equitable nature of reliefs of declaration and injunction. Suit of the petitioners was dismissed concurrently by both the Courts below. Validity. Possession was prima facie evidence of ownership. Petitioners could not prove their possessory title on the disputed land through purchase and failed to establish that respondents had no possessory title. Petitioners and their witnesses admitted the possession of respondents on the disputed land, therefore, they even failed to prove their possessory title. Petitioners did not offer any explanation, why they purchased the disputed land without receiving its physical or constructive possession. It is an established principle that 'potior est condition possidentis' (the condition of actual possessor is stronger) Where both the parties are equally at fault, then law will favour the party who is in possession, thus, petitioners had no cause of action for seeking declaration and perpetual injunction against the respondents. Petitioners had intentionally concealed the possession of respondents on the disputed land and the existence of the decision of a religious scholar in their plaint. Remedy of declaration and injunction are equitable in origin and discretionary in nature and remain so despite statutory confirmation in Ss.42 & 54 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (Act) One who seeks declaration and/or injunction in his favour must come to the court with clean hands. Petitioners had not come to the Trial Court with clean hands and concealed the material facts from the Trial Court, thus, they were not entitled to the equitable remedy and discretionary reliefs under Ss.42 & 54 of the Act. Petitioners were not in possession of the disputed land, thus, they could not have sought perpetual injunction against the respondents. Petitioners had not even pleaded their dispossession from the disputed land by the respondents and they had not sought the relief of possession and cancellation of contract in their plaint Furthermore subordinate Courts had also decided issue of court fee against the petitioners and they had not met the deficiency of court fee either before the Trial Court or before the Appellate Court. Civil Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.