1987 PLP 1516 (SCMR)
SULTAN AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM HUSSAIN and 2 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1516 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | SULTAN AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM HUSSAIN and 2 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Canal and Drainage Act (VIII of 1873)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1516 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Canal and Drainage Act (VIII of 1873)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1516 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1516 (SCMR) (SULTAN AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM HUSSAIN and 2 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ‑‑‑S. 68‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Additional canal water sanctioned on application of petitioner by canal authorities‑‑Petitioner's brother in joint Khata of property also claiming use of such water‑‑Trial Court and First Appellate Court holding that such additional water was meant only for petitioner while High Court reversed the finding on assumption that land held by two brothers being joint, petitioner could not alone claim the benefit of additional water‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider contention whether judgment of High Court was erroneous as private partition had already taken place between the two brothers, and that it was not open to High Court to interfere in revisional jurisdiction, with concurrent findings of fact, recorded by subordinate Courts.
- Muhammad Iqbal Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th June, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore. High Court, dated 2‑2‑1980 in Civil Revision No. 440 of 1978).
Judgment & Decree
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore. High Court, dated 2‑2‑1980 in Civil Revision No. 440 of 1978). ‑‑‑S. 68‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Additional canal water sanctioned on application of petitioner by canal authorities‑‑Petitioner's brother in joint Khata of property also claiming use of such water‑‑Trial Court and First Appellate Court holding that such additional water was meant only for petitioner while High Court reversed the finding on assumption that land held by two brothers being joint, petitioner could not alone claim the benefit of additional water‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider contention whether judgment of High Court was erroneous as private partition had already taken place between the two brothers, and that it was not open to High Court to interfere in revisional jurisdiction, with concurrent findings of fact, recorded by subordinate Courts. Muhammad Iqbal Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 10th June, 1987. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The main parties in this petition for special leave to appeal are two real brothers. The sole question for consideration in this petition is whether the additional water sanctioned by the canal authorities on the application of the petitioner was intended for his land alone or that both brothers were entitled to its use. The trial Court as well as the learned District Judge held that the additional water was meant only for the petitioner. The High Court reversed this finding on the assumption that the land held by the two brothers was joint and for that reason the petitioner could not alone claim the benefit of the additional water. In support of this petition it is contended that the assumption upon which the High Court based its judgment in revisional jurisdiction was erroneous as a private partition had already taken place between the two brothers. In support of this contention reliance is being placed on the revenue record. It is also contended that in revisional jurisdiction it was not open to the High Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the subordinate Courts. The contentions raised in support of this petition need examination. Leave to appeal is granted to the petitioner. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.1,000/‑. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any. A.A./S‑43/S Leave granted.