1991 PLP 1573 (CLC)
Mst. BADSHAH BEGUM and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus BARADRI KASHMIRI and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1573 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh, J |
| Parties | Mst. BADSHAH BEGUM and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus BARADRI KASHMIRI and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1573 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1573 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1573 (CLC) (Mst. BADSHAH BEGUM and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus BARADRI KASHMIRI and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Taqi for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 16th February, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 44, 54 & 55‑‑‑Suit for mandatory and perpetual injunction‑‑Appointment of Receiver‑‑‑Plaintiffs denied ownership of defendants in respect of property in dispute and claimed that same was meant for interest of all members of Bradari of plaintiffs‑‑‑Defendants totally denied claim of plaintiffs and pleaded that they were owners of property in dispute‑‑‑Ownership of plaintiffs in respect of property having categorically been denied by defendants, defendants could not have been dispossessed and Receiver could not have been appointed.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Taqi for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 16th February, 1991. This revision petition is directed against order dated 13‑2‑1978 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Lahore dismissing petitioners appeal against order dated 10‑7‑1977 passed by the learned trial Court through which application of the respondents for appointment of receiver during the pendency of their suit for rendition of accounts, mandatory and perpetual injunctions has been accepted and receiver appointed.
2. The case of the plaintiffs was that the petitioners were not the owners of the property but the same being property of `Takia Kashmirian Khisht Faroshan' was meant for the interest of all the members of the Baradari Khisht Faroshan but it was being administered by the petitioners alone. The petitioners denied the allegations and pleaded that they were the owners of the property. In this view of the matter it was rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that according to well‑established law where the ownership of the property by the plaintiffs jointly was denied, the defendants could not be dispossessed from the property unless it was proved in the suit that the property was commonly owned by all the parties.
3. The two Courts below have not found that there was any allegation of waste. The petitioners having pleaded that they were the owners of the property and the plaintiffs had no common interest with them in the property as owners therefore, the petitioners could not have been dispossessed and receiver could not have been appointed. The two Courts below acted with material irregularity and illegality in passing the impugned orders which is violative of well‑settled principles by the superior Courts regarding appointment of receiver where the ownership of the plaintiffs was categorically denied.
4. The revision petition is accepted, the orders of both the Courts below impugned are set aside and the application moved by the plaintiff for appointment of receiver stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. H.B.T./B‑234/L Petition accepted.