1970 PLP 89 (SCMR)
ABDUL HAMID-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM AND 2 OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1970 PLP 89 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL HAMID-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM AND 2 OTHERS-Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 PLP 89 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 PLP 89 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1970 PLP 89 (SCMR) (ABDUL HAMID-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM AND 2 OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Gul Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Siddiq & Company, Senior Attorneys for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 11th October 1967.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 17th April 1967, in Letters ; Patent Appeal No. 16 of 1962). Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act " (XXVIII of 1958), Sched., Part Fair division of house between parties all members of same family-Order of Settlement Authorities, held rightly not interfered with by High Court in writ jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
S. A. RAHMAN, J.‑The parties were in possession of a com posite property which was finally divided horizontally by the Settlement authorities. The petitioner along with his brother, Abdul Aziz, was given the first floor and the ground floor was ordered to be transferred to Muhammad Ibrahim through his wife, Mst. Fazal Bibi. The petitioner challenged the order of the Settlement authorities by a petition for a writ in the High Court but was unsuccessful. He now seeks special leave to appeal. The respondent, Muhammad Ibrahim, is married to a real sister of the petitioner and Abdul Aziz who are brothers. It would thus appear that the whole building which consists of two floors, was in fact occupied by one family. The complaint of Mr. Gul Muhammad Khan, on behalf of the petitioner; is that he had been jointly given with his brother, Abdul Aziz, the first door of which he was not in possession, whereas he was in possession of a room on the ground floor. He also contends that a joint transfer to the petitioner and his brother was not legal unless it was asked for by the two brothers in agreement. The position of possession is far from clear from the docu ments on record. From the order of the Settlement Commissioner with powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, appearing at page 28 et seq, it appears that the petitioner and his brother were in occupation of the first floor along with a room on the ground floor. The point that the petitioner and his brother did not apply for a joint transfer, was not raised before the Settlement authorities, although an opportunity for such a contention existed. We, therefore, do not see much substance in the objection realized now. On the whole, therefore, it appears to have been a division between the parties who all belong to one family, and the order being substantially just, we are not inclined to grant (cave to appeal in this case. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.