1988 PLP 472 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD SADIQ and others‑‑Appellants Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 472 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ijaz Nisar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SADIQ and others‑‑Appellants Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 472 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 472 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ijaz Nisar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 472 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD SADIQ and others‑‑Appellants Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ali Ahmad Awan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑5. 100‑‑Second appeal‑‑Finding of fact‑‑No error or defect pointed out‑‑Findings arrived at by Appellate Court below based on evidence on record, held, could not be interfered with in second appeal where no error or detect in such findings warranting interference was shown up.
Judgment & Decree
(3) Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD. (4) Whether Mst. Ditto inherited the suit land as limited owner? OPP. (5) If issue No.4 is proved, whether the sale mutations as mentioned in prayer of the plaint by defendant No.l are illegal, void and inoperative on the rights of the plaintiffs? OPP. (6) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is false and frivolus, if so, whether the defendants are entitled to any special costs, if proved to what extent? OPD. (7) Relief. After recording evidence the trial Court decreed the suit against Mst. Ditto, etc. on 15‑3‑1982 holding that mutation of gift by Mst. Ditto and subsequent mutations were illegal and void except the 1/4th share of Mst. Ditto in the suit land.
3. Feeling aggrieved Abdul Ghafoor, etc. filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned Addl. District Judge, Faisalabad, on 27‑6‑1983 and the judgment and decree of the trial Court were set aside. Hence this second appeal.
4. It is contended that there has been a misreading of evidence by the learned Appellate Court and the oral and documentary evidence has been ignored. Their main stay is on the application moved by Mst. Ditto in the Court of Deputy Custodian, Faisalabad for the grant of no objection certification and her admission that she could alienate the suit land to the extent of 1/4th share only. It is stated that after the said admission she could not_ have alienated the entire suit lahd.
5. The learned Additional District Judge observed that the petitioners had failed to show that the suit land had been allotted to Mst. Ditto as a limited owner. He further observed that the trial Court had relief on the orders passed by the Collector, Faisalabad in holding that Mst. Ditto was a limited owner but he did not refer to the decision of the Additional Commissioner, (Revenue) Sargodha and Board of Revenue wereby Mst. Ditto was held to be a full‑fledged owner of the suit property and competent to alienate the same.
5. I have considered the points urged by the learned counsel for the appellants. These were also urged before the learned Additional District Judge and were adequately dealt with by him. The findings arrived at by him are based on evidence and no error or defect is shown up warranting interference by this Court in second appeal. The learned trial Court had not considered the decisions of the learned Addl. Commissioner and the Board of Revenue in determining the status of Mst. Ditto and thus his findings were rightly set aside by the learned Additional District Judge in appeal.
6. Finding no substance in appeal, it is dismissed in limine, H.B.T./M‑515/L Appeal dismissed.