1987 PLP 345 (MLD)
MUNIR AHMAD AKHTAR — Petitioner Versus Mistri FAZAL AHMAD — Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 345 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Manzoor Hussain Sial, J |
| Parties | MUNIR AHMAD AKHTAR — Petitioner Versus Mistri FAZAL AHMAD — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 345 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 345 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Manzoor Hussain Sial, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 345 (MLD) (MUNIR AHMAD AKHTAR — Petitioner Versus Mistri FAZAL AHMAD — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Wahid Chaudhry for Petitioner.
- Saiful Haq Ziai for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S.115--Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of--Two Courts below without committing any illegality or material irregularity in evaluating evidence on record, concurrently dismissed suit filed by petitioner after holding that respondent was prior purchaser of plot in dispute and petitioner being subsequent purchaser thereof had no right therein--High Court upholding concurrent judgment and decree of two Courts below, dismissed revision filed by petitioner against such judgment and decree in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
(1) Whether the suit has been correctly valued for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction? If not what is the correct valuation? O. P. Parties. (2) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. (3) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? O. P. D. (4) Whether the property in dispute has been correctly described? O. P. P. (5) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the property i^ dispute? O. P. P. (6) Relief. The learned Civil Judge vide judgment, dated 1-11-1978 decided issues Nos.l to 4 in favour of the plaintiff while issue No.5 in favour of the defendant holding that through sale-deed (Exh.D/3) the property in dispute had been sold by Muhammad Khan to Mst. Aziz Begum the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant on 5-10-1963. He, therefore, was a prior purchaser of the disputed plot and the petitioner had no right in the property. He accordingly dismissed the suit. The petitioner assailed the afore-said order in appeal which was dismissed on 23-4-1981 by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore. Hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel contended that petitioner's predecessor purchased the disputed property from Muhammad Khan vendor who was owner of khasra No.225 measuring 15 kenals of land and got possession thereof on the spot. The mere fact that respondent's predecessor also purchased the land measuring 10 marlas, out of the aforesaid khasra number from Muhammad Khan prior in time would not prove that the plot in dispute belonged to him. Learned counsel referred to sale-deed (Exh.D/3) and other documents in addition to the statement of Muhammad Khan vendor to show that the plot in dispute was-sold to petitioner's predecessors.
4. After going through the relevant record with the assistance- of learned counsel for the petitioner, I find no substance in his submissions. Admittedly Mst. Aziz Begum respondent's predecessor, had purchased the land vide registered sale-deed (Exh.D/3), out of l the disputed khasra number from Muhammad Khan, prior in time than the sale made in favour of the petitioner. Muhammad Khan vendor of both the plots himself appeared at the trial and deposed that he alienated the disputed plot to Mst. Aziz Begum and that the defendant constructed a house on the disputed plot. He controverted the suggestion made on behalf of the petitioner that the defendant had constructed a house over khasra No.1367-min. In these circumstances I find that the learned lower Courts committed no illegality or material irregularity in evaluating the evidence on the record and dismissing petitioner's suit.
5. In the result this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./M-138/L Revision dismissed.