P L D 2006 Lahore 657 (PLP)
FALAK SHER through Legal Heirs — Petitioners Versus Mst. KANEEZ BIBI — Respondent
| Citation | P L D 2006 Lahore 657 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | FALAK SHER through Legal Heirs — Petitioners Versus Mst. KANEEZ BIBI — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2006 Lahore 657 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2006 Lahore 657 (PLP)?
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: P L D 2006 Lahore 657 (PLP) (FALAK SHER through Legal Heirs — Petitioners Versus Mst. KANEEZ BIBI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar for Petitioners.
- Shahid Qayyum Ch. for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 8
Other co-owners of the property having not joined the respondent/plaintiff in bringing suit for possession and not even impleading him as party to the suit by the plaintiff; the suit was defective which was fatal as to its maintainability.
Judgment & Decree
SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.
A suit for possession instituted by the respondent was contested by the petitioner which after due trial was dismissed by the trial Court on 3-4-1996. There against the appeal preferred by the respondent was, however, accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Dipalpur and the petitioner was "directed to hand over possession of the disputed property to the appellant within three months". This was vide judgment dated 7-10-2000 which has been assailed through this revision petition.
2. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard. The pleadings of the parties as also the evidence led by them has been considered.
3. It was found by the trial Court that the respondent/plaintiff was one of the shareholders in the joint property which conclusion apart from other evidence was drawn on perusal of Exh.P-1. The learned appellate Court has also referred to the same document Exh.P-1. (i.e. a copy of Register Haqdaran for the year 19.90-91) and came to the conclusion that she was co-owner in the property. In view of such position when she has been found to be a joint-owner, leaving aside other aspects, it is to be seen whether her suit for possession without joining the other co-owners was at all maintainable in law. In Khalique Ahmed v. Abdul Ghani and another PLD 1973 SC 214 while noting distinction in a suit for possession and ejectment petition it was observed by their Lordships that "A suit for possession can be brought by all the co-owners jointly. It is open, however, to one of them also to sue for possession, but he must join the other co-owners as defendants and the decree will be for joint possession and not in favour of the plaintiff only. Unlike, that a suit for ejectment can be filed by one of the co-owners without joining the others as defendants. This is the difference between an action for possession and an action for ejectment": Such being the legal position and the other co-owners having not joined the respondent/plaintiff in bringing suit for possession and not even impleaded as party to the suit by the respondent, the suit was defective which was fatal as to its maintainability. The learned appellate Court has, thus, acted illegally in decreeing such a suit. The judgment and decree passed by the learned appellate Court is unsustainable in law, which is set aside. As a result of the above, by accepting the revision petition the judgment of the learned appellate Court is set aside and that of the learned trial Court is restored. No order as to costs. M.B.A./F-35/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition accepted.