1991 PLP 1225 (SCMR)

‑‑‑‑S.22‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Deceased, a member of cooperative society having nominated petitioner, plot in question owned by him was transferred to petitioner after his death‑‑‑Respondent claimed to have purchased the plot from deceased's widow‑‑‑Petitioner's suit, that she was the sole owner of plot since 1935, when nomination was made in her favour was decreed by trial Court but finding was reversed by First Appellate Court as also by High Court in second appeal‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Petitioner's plea was that her assertion that deceased had sold the plot in question to her found support from the fact that deceased had nominated her as his nominee although she was in no way related to him; that petitioner as nominee of deceased was entitled to succeed to his share or interest in the land in question in preference to his widow under provisions of S.22, Cooperative Societies Act, 1912‑‑‑Contentions raised in support of petition needed examination‑‑‑Leave granted. Mian Nisar Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 26th September, 1989. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑The dispute in this petition for special leave to appeal relates to Plot No. 22 in Block `A' of Model Town, Lahore. It belonged to firm known as M/s. Seth Khuda Bakhsh & Sons which was owned entirely by Seth Rahim Bakhsh. By virtue of the ownership of the plot, he was the member of the Model Town Cooperative Society, a society registered under the Cooperative Societies Act.. In 1933, he appointed the petitioner as his nominee. He died in 1935. By a resolution dated 9‑4‑1947, the Society transferred the plot to the Petitioner and submitted her name in the register of members in place of Seth Rahim Bakhsh. Seth Rahim Bakhsh was issueless. On his death his widow Miraj Begum became his sole heir. In 1963, she sold the plot in dispute to respondent No.l.

2. The petitioner brought a suit for possession of the plot in dispute. She alleged that she was the sole owner of the plot since 1935 when the nomination was made in her favour by Seth Rahim Bakhsh and that Mst. Miraj Begum did not inherit any interest therein. The trial Court decreed her suit but in appeal by respondent No.l, it was dismissed. The petitioner filed a second appeal in the High Court which failed. She then filed a review application which also was dismissed. She now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.

3. In support of this petition it is contended that the High Court and the Additional District Judge overlooked some material circumstances. It was stated that the assertion of the petitioner that Seth Rahim Bakhsh had sold the plot to her, found support from the fact that he had nominated her as his nominee. Seth Rahim Bakhsh was in no way related to the petitioner and in the absence of any connection between the two, there was no reason why Seth Rahim Bakhsh should have nominated her as his nominee in preference to his own wife or other relatives. It was further stated that under section 22, Cooperative Societies Act, 1912, the petitioner as nominee of Seth Rahim Bakhsh was entitled to succeed to his share or interest in the land in dispute in preference to his widow.

4. The contentions raised in support of this petition need examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.5,

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‑482/S Leave granted.