P L D 1976 Lahore 346 (PLP)
WALI MUHAMMAD ETC. Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF ETC.-Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1976 Lahore 346 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | --Ss. 77(3)(h), (i) & 114(2)(a), (b)-Revenue Courts-Civil Courts- Jurisdiction, ouster of-Civil suit for joint possession against defen dants, some alleged to be occupancy tenants of land in dispute whose terms and conditions of tenancy envisaged payment to land lords of half share of produce-Subject-matter of suits, held fell within provisions of S. 77, attracted prohibition contained in S. 77(3), cls. (a) & (b) and jurisdiction of civil Court ousted-Mere fact of' Revenue Appellate Court having observed in his judgment that he would refrain from holding that subject-matter of case fell within S. 114(2)(a) or (b) because no issue had been framed whether batai in fact was or was not being paid to landlords and landlords could seek remedy in proper Court, held, could not confer jurisdiction upon civil Court.-Jurisdiction. |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Hussain, J |
| Parties | WALI MUHAMMAD ETC. Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF ETC.-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1976 Lahore 346 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1976 Lahore 346 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the --Ss. 77(3)(h), (i) & 114(2)(a), (b)-Revenue Courts-Civil Courts- Jurisdiction, ouster of-Civil suit for joint possession against defen dants, some alleged to be occupancy tenants of land in dispute whose terms and conditions of tenancy envisaged payment to land lords of half share of produce-Subject-matter of suits, held fell within provisions of S. 77, attracted prohibition contained in S. 77(3), cls. (a) & (b) and jurisdiction of civil Court ousted-Mere fact of' Revenue Appellate Court having observed in his judgment that he would refrain from holding that subject-matter of case fell within S. 114(2)(a) or (b) because no issue had been framed whether batai in fact was or was not being paid to landlords and landlords could seek remedy in proper Court, held, could not confer jurisdiction upon civil Court.-Jurisdiction. bench comprising: Mushtaq Hussain, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1976 Lahore 346 (PLP) (WALI MUHAMMAD ETC. Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF ETC.-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Z. Khalil for Appellants.
- Raja Abdul Razzaq for Respondents Nos. 1 to 5.
- Date of hearing : 20th January 1976.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 77(3)(h), (i) & 114(2)(a), (b)-Revenue Courts-Civil Courts- Jurisdiction, ouster of-Civil suit for joint possession against defen dants, some alleged to be occupancy tenants of land in dispute whose terms and conditions of tenancy envisaged payment to land lords of half share of produce-Subject-matter of suits, held fell within provisions of S. 77, attracted prohibition contained in S. 77(3), cls. (a) & (b) and jurisdiction of civil Court ousted-Mere fact of' Revenue Appellate Court having observed in his judgment that he would refrain from holding that subject-matter of case fell within S. 114(2)(a) or (b) because no issue had been framed whether batai in fact was or was not being paid to landlords and landlords could seek remedy in proper Court, held, could not confer jurisdiction upon civil Court.-[Jurisdiction]. Nemo for the Remaining Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887)- --Ss. 77(3)(h), (i) & 114(2)(a), (b)-Revenue Courts-Civil Courts- Jurisdiction, ouster of-Civil suit for joint possession against defen dants, some alleged to be occupancy tenants of land in dispute whose terms and conditions of tenancy envisaged payment to land lords of half share of produce-Subject-matter of suits, held fell within provisions of S. 77, attracted prohibition contained in S. 77(3), cls. (a) & (b) and jurisdiction of civil Court ousted-Mere fact of' Revenue Appellate Court having observed in his judgment that he would refrain from holding that subject-matter of case fell within S. 114(2)(a) or (b) because no issue had been framed whether batai in fact was or was not being paid to landlords and landlords could seek remedy in proper Court, held, could not confer jurisdiction upon civil Court.-[Jurisdiction]. M. Z. Khalil for Appellants. Raja Abdul Razzaq for Respondents Nos. 1 to
5. Nemo for the Remaining Respondents. Date of hearing : 20th January 1976.