2006 PLP 1629 (MLD)
MUMTAZ KHAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1629 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUMTAZ KHAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1629 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1629 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1629 (MLD) (MUMTAZ KHAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Aurangzeb Daha for Petitioner.
- Zahid Sultan Khan for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S.42
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115
Suit for declaration of joint ownership
Observation of Appellate Court to the effect, that there was a vacant land and same be given to plaintiff through process of partition, was attacked on the ground that evidence on record about the type of land covered by Khata in question went against the finding that the land was vacant
Submission made by defendant was that plaintiff had no right to be accommodated within the vacant land
Validity--Observation made in the judgment of Appellate Court to that extent exceeded the relief claimed by plaintiff and could be modified
With the consent of parties, said observation was deleted
Remaining order of Appellate Court which affirmed order of the Trial Court, was maintained.
Judgment & Decree
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.
Learned counsel assails the judgment, dated 4-10-2005 by the learned appellate Court which affirms the judgment, dated 31-7-2004 decreeing the suit for declaration of joint ownership of the respondent, Mumtaz Khan to the extent of 10 Kanals in Khata No.1060 measuring 107 kanals 10 marlas, according to Jamabandi for the year, 1991-92 situate in Mouza Yarokhail Pacca, Tehsil and District Minawali to the extent of 10 kanals claimed by the respondent. The only grievance of the petitioner is with respect to the following observations given by the learned appellate Court in its impugned judgment: "It is also admitted fact by the evidence of the defendants themselves that some portion of the land is still vacant. Keeping in view of these circumstances, by way of the partition, the vacant land can be given to the respondent/plaintiff in view of the mode of partition and plan of partition which has already been directed by the learned lower Court, therefore, the instant appeal has no merits and same is hereby, dismissed." (emphasis added).
2. The observations to the effect that there is vacant land and the same be given to the respondent through process of partition is attacked on the ground that the evidence on the record about the type of land covered by the khata in question goes against the finding that the land is vacant. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that his client has only sought sub-division of the land through partition and for lack of his share therein to the extent of 10 kanals which interest is not disputed by the petitioner. Whether such sub-divided share of the respondent falls in the built up land or the vacant land is a matter that shall be determined by local commission appointed to carry out the partition. Resultantly,' he submits that the concern of the petitioner expressed at the present stage is premature.
3. Submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent shall have no right to be accommodated within the vacant land in khata number 1060. The observation made in the judgment of the learned appellate Court to that extent exceeds the relief claimed by the respondent and may therefore be modified. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the observation in the appellate order about the respondent being accommodated in vacant land in khata No.1060 is deleted. The remaining order by the learned appellate Court which affirms the order of the learned trial Court is sustained and the matter shall be decided in accordance with the said judgment as modified. Disposed of. H.B.T./M-386/L Order accordingly.