1991 PLP 1833 (SCMR)
HASHIM ALI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1833 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | HASHIM ALI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1833 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1833 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1833 (SCMR) (HASHIM ALI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th July, 1989.
- Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 27-5-89 of the Lahore High Court, in C.R. No.1114/D of 1984).
S. 42
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Suit for declaration-- Suit filed by predecessor-in-interest of respondents that he was owner in possession of suit land and sale-deed alleged to have been executed by him in favour of petitioner and others was a forged one, was concurrently decreed up to the High Court
Case of petitioner/defendant, itself being that he had not Purchased land in dispute from predecessor-in-interest of respondents, but had obtained it from another person of the same name
Courts below, held. were justified in granting declaration sought in suit
Leave to appeal dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a suit filed by Ali Muhammad, predecessor‑in‑interest of respondents Nos.1 to 6 for, a declaration inter alia that he was owner in possession of about 51 Kanals of land and that the sale‑deed dated 18‑8‑72 alleged to have been executed by him in favour of the petitioner and some others, was forged one. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and the petitioner's appeal before the Additional District Judge and revision petition before the High Court failed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. It was not the case of the petitioner and the other vendees that they had purchased the land in dispute from Ali Muhammad, plaintiff, predecessor‑in -interest of respondents Nos.1 to 6; on the other hand, they claimed that they had obtained the land from another person of the same name. The trial Court as well as the Additional District Judge have concurrently held that the Settlement authorities had transferred the land to the plaintiff and he was the true owner thereof. In view of this finding the decree passed by the trial Court in the plaintiff's favour does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
3. In support of this petition it is alleged that the allotment obtained by Ali Muhammad was fraudulent. By way of an explanation it is stated that he, by misrepresentation, had also obtained the allotment in respect of the claim of one Alia whose father bore the same name as his own and was of the same caste. It is also stated that the petitioner has filed a writ petition in the High Court which is still pending to seek registration of a criminal case against Ali Muhammad and his successors‑in‑interest.
4. It is to be noticed that the allotment obtained by Ali Muhammad, plaintiff, is still intact and has not been so far set aside by any competent authority. There is no finding by the Civil Court that the said allotment suffers from any fraud. In the circumstances when the petitioner's own case is that he and the other vendees had not purchased the land in dispute from Ali Muhammad the Courts below were justified in granting the declaration sought in the suit. The petition is dismissed. H.B.T./H‑89/S Petition dismissed.