1991 PLP R1556 (SCMR)
MAUJ DIN — Petitioner Versus Mst. BANG through Legal Heirs and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP R1556 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ |
| Parties | MAUJ DIN — Petitioner Versus Mst. BANG through Legal Heirs and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP R1556 (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 R1556 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP R1556 (SCMR) (MAUJ DIN — Petitioner Versus Mst. BANG through Legal Heirs and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- A.K. Dogar, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 1st November, 1989.
- S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the Judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 26-6-1989 in R.S.A. No.685 of 1989).
S.42
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Plaintiffs suit for declaration and perpetual injunction was dismissed by Trial Court but was decreed in appeal
High Court, in second appeal set aside First Appellate Court's decision and restored that of Trial Court
High Court having gone through the entire evidence had concluded that defendant had got ,1, the sale mutation clandestinely, fraudulently and collusively in his favour and the same was rightly cancelled by the Collector
High Court having reappraised the entire evidence came to the conclusion which was in accordance with law and the evidence led by the parties and as such its finding was subject to no exception-- Leave to appeal, was refused.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑‑Petitioner Mauj Din's suit for declaration that he was owner of the land in Chak No.323/E.B., Tchsil Vehari and for perpetual injunction before the Civil Judge, Vehari was dismissed by judgment dated 12‑10‑1968. He appealed to the District Judge against the aforesaid judgment of the Civil Judge. Appeal was dealt with by the Additional District Judge, Multan who by judgment dated 31‑3‑1969 accepted the same and decreed the suit of Mauj Din plaintiff, for a declaration that he was owner of the suit land and as a consequential relief further ordered that the defendant shall not interfere with the possession of Mauj din. Judgment of the Additional District Judge was challenged by way of Regular Second Appeal in the Lahore High Court. The High Court by its judgment dated 26‑6‑1989 accepted the appeal. The judgment and decree of the first appellate Court was set aside and that of the trial Court restored with the result that the suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Mauj Din now seeks leave to appeal against the aforesaid judgment of the Lahore High Court. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:‑‑ (1) Whether the suit land is evacuee and this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? OD (2) Whether this suit cannot proceed in the present form? OD (3) Whether the defendant duly sold the suit land to the plaintiff for consideration and received the consideration money? OP (4) Relief. The parties fought with regard to issue No.3 and led evidence pertaining to this issue but as the same had not been proved, the trial Court dismissed the suit. In the last order passed by the High Court in the Regular Second Appeal, the High Court again went through the entire evidence and then came to the conclusion, "it appears that the plaintiff‑respondent had been in possession of the suit land and taking advantage of the absence of the lady from the village, he, in collusion with the Revenue Officials and with the support of his friends and relations, got the sale mutation clandestinely, fraudulently and collusively sanctioned in his favour and it was rightly cancelled by the Collector on an appeal preferred by her". For the foregoing reasons as well as for other reasons given in the impugned judgment, the judgment of the Additional District Judge was upset. It is thus, obvious that there is hardly any legal proposition worth examination. The High Court having re‑appraised the entire evidence came to the conclusion which is in accordance with law and the evidence led by the parties and as such is subject to no exception. No case for leave is made out. Dismissed. A.A./M‑1209 /S Leave refused.