1987 PLP 2032 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD BASHIR and others‑‑Petitioners Versus ABDUL LATIF‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 2032 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD BASHIR and others‑‑Petitioners Versus ABDUL LATIF‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 2032 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 2032 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman, Javid Iqbal 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 2032 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD BASHIR and others‑‑Petitioners Versus ABDUL LATIF‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rao Hamid Mukhtar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Kadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 2nd August, 1987.
- 3. Rao Hamid Mukhtar Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the finding of the civil Court that they had no jurisdiction to go into the question of demarcation and title as it had been decided by the Settlement Authority, is erroneous because this was eminently a suitable subject‑matter of litigation before the civil Court.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 11‑5‑1987 passed in R.S.A. No. 325 of 1972). ‑‑‑S.-10 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Evacuee property‑‑Transfer/demarcation of‑‑Jurisdiction of Civil Courts‑ Respondent's suit for declaration and injunction with regard to property purchased by him from Settlement Department‑‑‑ Petitioner disputing its transfer to respondent and demarcation by Settlement Authorities‑‑ Trial Court holding that properties claimed by respondent and petitioner were two different properties, decreed suit against petitioner and decision maintained upto second appeal‑‑Plea raised that finding of Civil Court that they had no jurisdiction to go into question of demarcation and title as it had been decided by Settlement Authorities, was erroneous because this was eminently a suitable subject‑matter of litigation before Civil Court‑‑Held, as title was claimed by both parties from Settlement Department and not only in matter of title but also on question of demarcation of property following such transfer, they had agitated before Settlement Authorities and a clear finding was available that decision was not open to scrutiny in Civil Court on factual plane‑‑Three Courts had recorded a finding with regard to identities of two properties and title in them which was in accordance with evidence brought on record and law on the subject‑‑Petition being without merit, leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The petitioner, a defendant in a civil suit, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 11‑5‑1987 whereby a regular second appeal filed by him against the concurrent judgment and decree of the two Courts was dismissed.
2. Abdul Latif respondent had purchased house No.1/262 from the Settlement Department and had obtained a PTD. He had got the property demarcated and a plan approved from the Settlement Department. The petitioner threatened him with ejectment from the premises whereupon he instituted a civil suit. The plea of the petitioner in resisting the suit was that this house was not transferred to the respondent nor demarcated by the Settlement Department and that in this manner the respondent wanted to grab the property belonging to the petitioner. Four issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties. From the PTD and the plan prepared and the demarcation, the trial Court held that house No.1/262 claimed by the respondent and house No.1/260 claimed by the petitioner were two different properties with a lane in between. A decree with costs was passed against the petitioner which was maintained in first and second appeal.
3. Rao Hamid Mukhtar Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the finding of the civil Court that they had no jurisdiction to go into the question of demarcation and title as it had been decided by the Settlement Authority, is erroneous because this was eminently a suitable subject‑matter of litigation before the civil Court.
4. As the title was claimed by both the parties from the Settlement Department and not only in the matter of title but also on the question of demarcation of the property following such transfer, they had agitated before the Settlement Authorities and a clear finding is available that decision is not open to scrutiny in civil Court on the factual plane. With regard to the identities of the two properties and the title in them, it appears that all the three Courts have recorded a finding which is in accordance with the evidence brought on the record and the law on the subject. There is no merit in the petition and leave to appeal is refused. M.I./M‑196/S. Petition dismissed.