P L D 1970 Dacca 466 (PLP)
WAJED ALI AND OTHERS‑‑Petitioners Versus SUDHIR CHANDRA DAS AND OTHERS‑Opposite‑Parties
| Citation | P L D 1970 Dacca 466 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | A. S. Chowdhry and A. H. Khan, JJ |
| Parties | WAJED ALI AND OTHERS‑‑Petitioners Versus SUDHIR CHANDRA DAS AND OTHERS‑Opposite‑Parties |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1970 Dacca 466 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1970 Dacca 466 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: A. S. Chowdhry and A. H. Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1970 Dacca 466 (PLP) (WAJED ALI AND OTHERS‑‑Petitioners Versus SUDHIR CHANDRA DAS AND OTHERS‑Opposite‑Parties). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- R. K. Bhattacharjee with Aftabuddin Ahmed for Petitioners.
- Sultan Hussain Khan for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 18th March 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 52‑Lis pendens‑Partition suit‑Suit contemplated in S. 52‑Doctrine of lis pendens‑Applicable to partition suit‑Tenancy created during pendency of partition suit‑Person inducted into property by one co‑sharer without concurrence of others‑Premises occupied by such person not falling to share of co‑sharer inducting him into premises‑ Co‑sharer allottee of portion comprising such premises, held, cannot be saddled with encumbrances created during litigation and entitled to get possession of premises free of all encumbrances. In a partition suit also right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question. In a partition suit a decree is not given according to the shares claimed but according to shares determined in such a suit. It is therefore clearly a suit in which the right of a party in a property held jointly with others is determined and a new and exclusive right is created in favour of a party. Partition suit i3 therefore a suit contemplated in section
52. When such a suit is pending transfer of the property is prohibited A creation of tenancy would indeed be a transfer of the right of occupation and section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, therefore applies to this class of suits. The petitioners were inducted into the suit land during the pendency of the partition suit without the concurrence of other co‑owners and the landlord who inducted them into premises had not been given land which were possessed by the petitioners but he had been allotted a different saham. A co‑sharer who has been allotted the saham which is in possession of petitioners is entitled to get possession of the saham allotted to him free from all encumbrances. To saddle him with encumbrances created during the litigation would render the principle of doctrine of lis pendens nugatory. Jogendra Chandra Ghosh v. Fulkumari Dassi I L R 27 Cal. 77; Sree Nath Paul v. Sanchindra Kumar Bashu and others P L D 1969 Dacca 120; Abdul Ghani Talukdar and others v. Rushan and others P L D 1960 Dacca 359; Niranjan Mukherjee v. Soudamani Dasi and others A I R 1926 Cal. 714; Hiranya Bhusan Mukherjee v. Gouri Dutt Maharaj and others A I R 1913 Cal. 227; 49 Cal. 220 and Pir Abdullah Shah and others v. Humayun and others P L D 1957 Lah. 1054 rel. Civil Revision Case No. 1363 of 1967 Asrar ul Hussain, Advocate‑General with Abdul Azim for the Opposite‑Party No.
1. A. H. Md. Saadat Ali Khan for the Opposite‑Party No.
14. S. M. Haq for Deputy Registrar for the Opposite‑Parties Nos. 3 to
5. Civil Revision Case No. 11 of 1968 Asrarul Hussain, Advocate‑General with A. Azim for the Opposite‑Party No.
1. A. H. Md. Saadat Ali Khan for the Opposite‑Parties Nos. 15 and 17.
Judgment & Decree
A. H. KHAN, J.
‑I agree. A. E. ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????? Rules discharged.