2003 PLP 3169 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD SHER‑‑Petitioner Versus GUL MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 3169 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Syed Sakhi Hussain Bukhari, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHER‑‑Petitioner Versus GUL MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Partition Act (IV of 1893)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 3169 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Partition Act (IV of 1893)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 3169 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Syed Sakhi Hussain Bukhari, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 3169 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD SHER‑‑Petitioner Versus GUL MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Farooq Qureshi Chishti for Petitioner.
- Zahid Hussain Khan for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 2nd April, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑--Ss.3 & 4‑‑‑Suit for partition‑‑‑Partial partition‑‑‑Suit was resisted by defendant contending that parties owned two shops, but plaintiff having filed suit in respect of only one shop suit was liable to be dismissed‑‑ Evidence on record had proved that the other shop was purchased by plaintiff in open auction and proprietary rights in respect of said shop had been transferred in his favour‑‑‑Defendant had failed to produce any document to show that said other shop was jointly owned by the parties‑‑‑Case, in circumstances, was not a case of partial partition‑‑‑Trial Court was not justified to dismiss suit and Appellate Court had rightly set aside judgment and decree of Trial Court‑‑‑Defendant having failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the judgment or any misreading of evidence by Appellate Court, its judgment and decree could not be interfered with by High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possess half share of the suit shop as prayed for? OPP (2) Whether the plaintiff is estopped to sue on account of his words and conduct? OPD (3) Whether the suit has not been valued properly for the purposes of court‑fee and jurisdiction? OPD (4) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD (5) Whether the suit is bad for non‑joinder of necessary parties? OPD (6) Whether the defendant is entitled to special costs under section 35‑A, C.P.C.? OPD (7) Relief.
2. After recording evidence, learned trial Court dismissed the suit brought by respondent/plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 18‑9‑1995. The plaintiff then filed appeal which was accepted by learned District Judge, Khushab vide judgment dated 10‑9‑1996. Hence this revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record perused.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties owned two shops bearing No.3837‑B and No.40 in Ithaad Market but respondent/plaintiff filed suit for partition of Shop No.3837‑B, only, therefore, his suit was liable to be dismissed as it was for partial partition. Further submits that the trial Court did not frame proper issues and has prayed for remand of the case. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent submits that Shop No.40 in Ithaad Market was owned by Gul Muhammad (respondent) as he had purchased the same in open auction in 1952 when the petitioner was minor. Further submits that said shop was transferred in the name of the respondent alone, therefore, this was not a case for partial partition.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. Admittedly the disputed shop was owned by the parties jointly. So plaintiff could file this suit. As regards Shop No.40 in Ithaad Market, said shop was purchased by the respondent in open auction and proprietary rights have been transferred in his favour. The petitioner has failed to produce any document to show that the said property was jointly owned by the parties. As such it was not a case for partial partition. The learned District Judge appreciated the evidence of the parties. Trial Court had framed proper issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties. The petitioner never raised such objection during trial of case.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment nor any misreading of evidence by the learned District Judge. I therefore, find no justification to set aside the same. As such this petition has no force and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. H.B.T./M‑2032/L Revision dismissed.