IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE MUSHIR ALAM 
MR. JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB 
MR. JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 339-K OF 2017 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 19.05.2017 
passed by the High Court of Sindh, Hyderabad in 
R.A. No. 44/2015) 
 
Muhammad Rahim 
… Petitioner 
VERSUS 
Mohsin and another 
… Respondents 
 
For the Petitioner:  
Mr. Noor Ahmed Memon, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Abdul Saeed Kahn Ghori, AOR 
 
For the Respondent (s): Barrister Shabbir Shah, Addl. A.G. Sindh 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Kazi Hameed Siddiqui, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Ghulam Rasool Mangi, AOR 
 
Date of Hearing:  
20.12.2018 
 
JUDGEMENT 
 
 
Faisal Arab, J:- Dispute in the present proceedings 
pertains to ownership of half portion of a plot bearing No. 479 
measuring 1650 square feet situated in Deh Badin, district Badin. 
The said plot, which was previously evacuee property, was sold at 
auction held on 25.02.1967 jointly to Ali Buksh and Abdullah 
Memon both of whom held equal share. Sale was confirmed on 
17.05.1967 and PTD No.19061 was issued on 31.12.1968. Upon 
payment of auction money, a mutation entry No. 69 was kept in 
their names in the revenue record. The respondents namely 
Mohsin Ali and his sister Mst. Zuhra are the heirs of one of the co-
owners Ali Buksh. They initiated suits for possession of their 
shares in the plot in question when Mohsin Ali who lived abroad 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 339-K OF 2017 
2
from 1973 to 2009 upon his return found that the heirs of the 
other co-owner Abdullah had occupied the portion on the front of 
the plot and the plot was in unauthorized occupation of the 
present petitioner. Suit No.8 of 2010 was filed against the heirs of 
Abdullah who during the course of the proceedings accepted the 
claim of the respondents and agreed to give a road facing portion of 
440 square feet to the respondents. In this regard, a compromise 
decree was passed in the suit on 03.04.2010. Another suit bearing 
No.15 of 2010 for declaration, possession, mesne profits and 
permanent injunction was filed against the petitioner who denied 
the respondents’ claim that he is in unlawful occupation of any 
part of their plot and claimed ownership of his own on the strength 
of a sale deed executed by Gul Muhammad and Noor Muhammad. 
The respondents’ suit was dismissed after which an appeal was 
field which was also dismissed on 17.12.2014. The respondents 
then filed civil revision application in the High Court which was 
decided on 05.05.2017 in their favour holding the petitioner to be 
in unlawful occupation of respondents’ plot. Hence this petition.  
 
2. 
 
Learned counsel of the petitioner argued that the plot 
in question was sold to the petitioner vide registered sale deed 
dated 13.11.1994 by Gul Muhammad and Noor Muhammad who 
were at that time the owners and denied that the father of the 
respondents owned any share in the said plot; that the 
respondents have not mentioned in their plaint the Deh in which 
the suit plot is situated but referred to entry No. 121/A, which is 
recorded in revenue record of Deh Pattar, district Badin; that the 
chain of documents produced by them show location of 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 339-K OF 2017 
3
respondents’ plot in Deh Pattar as well as Deh Badin which creates 
doubt in the title of the respondents. Learned counsel for 
respondents on the other hand defended the impugned judgement.  
 
3. 
 
The main point in issue is as to in which Deh the 
disputed property lies. According to entry No. 461 dated 
16.05.2009 of VF-II produced by the respondents at trial it is 
stated that the plot in question is situated in Deh Badin, which 
was wrongly recorded in Deh Pattar however the petitioner denies 
this and maintains that their plot is in Deh Pattar. Upon perusal of 
documents and the report filed by the Mukhtiyarkar Badin, it 
becomes clear that the ‘’foti khata’ of deceased Ali Buksh’s 50% 
share measuring 825 square feet in the disputed plot was 
transferred in favour of the respondents vide entry 461 and a note 
has also been recorded that the plot is located in Deh Badin which 
mistakenly stands entered in the records of Deh Pattar. The order 
No. 
AC/27/2015 
dated 
20.01.2015 
of 
then 
Assistant 
Commissioner Badin also clarifies that the location of the plot is in 
Deh Badin.  
 
4. 
 
It is important to mention that even though the 
petitioner claims to have purchased the plot in question from Gul 
Muhammad, he was unable to satisfy the High Court as to how 
Gul Muhammad acquired title in the disputed plot. The learned 
High Courts while examining this issue held as below:  
“When the learned counsel for the respondent was posed 
with the question to satisfy this court as to how did the 
seller of the property namely Gul Muhammad got his title? 
He had no answer. In this regard however reference could 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 339-K OF 2017 
4
be made to the EX.No.61, where the respondent admits 
that he is the bona fide purchaser of the suit land from the 
‘original owners’ however he even did not provide their 
names which he mentioned only in the cross to be Gul 
Muhammad and Noor Muhammad. While in the same cross 
he denied that the allotment of Gul Muhammad and Noor 
Muhammad was cancelled vide Commissioner Hyderabad 
orders which were upheld by the Member Board of 
Revenue in case No SPOR 723 of 1982-83 dated 
28.11.1984. However despite the presence of these 
impressive documents the courts below utterly looked on 
the other side by ignoring these compelling pieces of 
evidence, it was also alleged that even the said Noor 
Muhammad preferred an appeal against Abdullah which 
was dismissed.  
…. It is also noted that both the judgements while 
mentioning the sale deed in terms of which the respondent 
became owner of a part of the plot in question, however, 
are completely silent as to from where did Gul Muhammad 
acquired his title as no proof is produced thereof at all in 
the two judgements in question” 
 
5. 
 
As per the case of the petitioner an area of 919 square 
feet plot out of Bhadda land of Deh Pattar was transferred by Gul 
Muhammad in his name on the basis of registered sale deed No. 
737 dated 13.11.1994 and mutation was affected in the revenue 
record vide entry No. 14 dated 10.12.1994 but plot number or 
survey number is not mentioned and the description in the sale 
deed also does not match with the plot in question. In any case, 
the sale deed dated 13.11.1994 pertains to land located in Deh 
Pattar whereas the respondents’ plot No. 479 is found to be in Deh 
Badin. Both are adjoining Dehs. Hence, on the basis of documents 
available on record and the report submitted by Assistant 
Commissioner, Badin, it has become clear that the plot No. 479 is 
located in Deh Badin and its original owners were Ali Buksh and 
Abdullah Memon and the respondents as heirs of Ali Bakhsh 
became entitled to half share in the disputed plot which was 
unlawfully occupied by the petitioner on the basis of a document 
that pertains to land located in Deh Pattar and not Deh Badin.  
CIVIL PETITION NO. 339-K OF 2017 
5
 
6. 
 
In light of the above we do not find any reason to 
interfere with the findings arrived at in the judgement of the High 
Court, this petition is therefore dismissed.   
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
Announced on 08.05.2019 at Islamabad.  
Not Approved For Reporting 
Khurram 
