1994 PLP 1797 (SCMR)
GHULAM MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus JAN MUHAMMAD and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1797 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus JAN MUHAMMAD and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Co‑sharer‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1797 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Co‑sharer‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1797 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1797 (SCMR) (GHULAM MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus JAN MUHAMMAD and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Azim, Advocate Supreme Court with Muhammad Aslam Chaudhary, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th October, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, dated 20‑2‑1993 in Writ Petition No. 209 of 1993/BWP). ‑‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Petitioner (co‑sharer) and respondent (stranger) purchasing land jointly from another co‑sharer‑‑ Separate parcels of land were delivered to both of them‑‑‑Possession of land in question, was delivered to respondent after sale‑‑‑Petitioner (co‑sharer) was shown to be in cultivating possession of land in question as tenant under respondent in Khasra Girdawari‑‑‑Such entries were, however, got changed by petitioner with the connivance of Patwari and instead of continuing to be recorded as a tenant under respondent, he was shown to be in possession of land in question, as a co‑sharer‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Vendor at the time of sale had given possession of land in question, to respondent who had the option either to cultivate that land himself or to get the same cultivated through petitioner‑‑ Petitioner was, therefore, a tenant under respondent and Khasra Girdawari for the relevant period correctly represented the position on the spot‑‑‑Contention that co‑sharer, could not also be a tenant was in the circumstances without any merit‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑The dispute in this petition for special leave to appeal relates to Villas Nos. 4 and 5 of Square No. 42 in Chak No. 10, Gajbani, Tehsil Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar. These Villas were part of the land sold by Muhammad Hussain, brother of the petitioner, in July 1971, jointly to the petitioner and Jan Muhammad, respondent No.
1. At the time of the sale Muhammad Hussain delivered possession to the petitioner and respondent No. 1, of different and separate parcels of the land. Thus, the possession of the disputed Villas was given to respondent No.
1. After the sale the petitioner was shown to be in cultivating possession of the Villas in dispute as tenant under respondent No. 1 in the Khasra Girdawari.
2. In the Khasra Girdawari for the crops of Rabi and Kharif 1983 the entries in respect of the Villas in dispute were changed by the Patwari, for, now instead of continuing to be recorded as tenant under respondent No. 1, the petitioner was shown to be in possession of the said Villas as a co‑sharer. On learning about the alteration respondent No. 1 moved an application before the Collector for the correction of the Khasra Girdawari. The Collector allowed the application and directed that the earlier entries be repeated. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner which was allowed and the order of the Collector was set aside. Respondent No. 1 filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue. This was dismissed. However, on review the Board of Revenue set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner and restored that of the Collector. The petitioner filed a Constitution petition in the High Court to call in question the legality of the order made in review by the Board of Revenue but it was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
3. In support of this petition it is contended that the petitioner was admittedly a co‑sharer alongwith respondent No. 1 in the Villas in dispute. He could not 'herefore be described as a tenant under respondent No.
1. Consequently, the impugned order of the Board of Revenue could not be sustained.
4. The contention raised in support of this petition is without any merit. As already stated, at the time of the sale the vendor had given the possession of the Villas in dispute to respondent No.
1. It was open to respondent No. 1 to cultivate these .Villas himself or let them out to another person. In this case he chose to get the Villas in dispute cultivated through the petitioner. The petitioner was therefore clearly a tenant under respondent No. 1 and the Khasra Girdawari for the crops prior to Kharif 1982 correctly represented the position on the spot. The contention that a co‑sharer could not also be a tenant is in the circumstances without any merit. This petition has no substance and is hereby dismissed. A.A./G‑434/S Petition dismissed.