Private partition

2025 PLD 155 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 18, 30 & 54Acquisition of landCompensationEntitlementPrivate partitionEffectReferee Judge accepted objections of respondents and held them entitled to compensation as co-sharersValidity

Property was privately partitioned and as a result of such partition, all co-owners were assigned specific portions of properties

Such private partition was further strengthened through mutation and after getting their specific portions of holdings, the parties remained in constant possession in exclusion of other co-owners

Private partition was a bona fide transaction and no co-owner ever questioned its validity

As a result of such private partition, respondents/objectors were given property which was later on acquired

Petitioners were excluded from questioning such private settlement

Referee Judge had rightly held that respondents/objectors were entitled to receive amount of compensation of land by answering reference under S. 30 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in positive

High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction declined to interfere in the order passed by Referee Judge

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

2025 MLD 309 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

S.147Private partitionScopeChildren of son of the propositusShare of their deceased father, entitlement toScope

Whether the plaintiffs/appellants, being children of deceased son of predecessor, were entitled to get a share from the property of predecessor or not?

Though it is not disputed that predecessor-in-interest partitioned his property amongst his four sons but the private partition of his legacy was not confirmed as was required by S.147 of Land Revenue Act, 1967, thus it had got no legal sanctity

No misreading and non-reading of evidence or violation of any settled law had been noticed in the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below

Second appeal filed by plaintiffs, being merit-less, was dismissed, in circumstance.

2022 PLD 766 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 10Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXVI, R. 1Private partitionInternal auctionSuit for declaration/partitionPrivately partitioned property between the parties was prayed to be declared final

Respondent/plaintiff also filed a suit for partition of the disputed shop asserting that he and the petitioner were joint owners of the said shop and that the same shop be partitioned

Suit was concurrently decreed

Local Commission submitted his report proposing that the suit property was not partitionable and the same should be disposed of through auction

Both parties objected to the said report and Trial Court called for second report which was not objected to by the respondent but petitioner filed objections thereon which were declined by the Court

Trial Court decreed suit observing that the suit property was to be partitioned as per second report of the Local Commission

Petitioner filed appeal which was dismissed by the District Court

Validity

Second local commission was also appointed before the enactment of the provision of referee in Partition Act, 2012, therefore, the order of the Trial Court for the appointment of commission on second time was valid and legal

Admittedly, the suit property had been partitioned through family settlement 20 years ago, therefore, said private partition be declared final and the possession of the disputed property be handed over to the parties in accordance with the private partition

Report of local commission showed the disputed property as partitionable whereas Oversee Building Department (technical person) had submitted his independent report proposing the auction of the suit property for having found it not partitionable

Trial Court had not considered the objections raised by the petitioner and simply declined the objections without assigning any reason

Trial Court also did not consider the report of Overseer Building Department (technical person)

Courts below failed to appreciate the point that due to undividable partition, the value of the property in dispute and shares of the co-sharer would be diminished

Principles of natural justice/equity including easement rights were not considered in view of the Arts. 4, 8, 9, 18, 23, 24 & 38 of the Constitution

High Court allowed revision petition and remanded the matter to Trial Court to decide the objections to the report of Local Commission.

2022 MLD 2051 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Joint propertyPrivate partitionFamily settlement and partition can be reached at privately by parties

Courts of law have recognized such private partition as the same requires some degree of recognition under law or through conduct of parties.

2021 MLD 531 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss.141 & 172Suit for specific performance of agreement to exchange landAgriculture landPrivate partitionCivil Court, jurisdiction ofScopePlaintiff / appellant filed suit for enforcing agreement to exchange agriculture land

Suit was decreed in favour of plaintiff / appellant by Trial Court mainly on the ground that it was a contract enforceable at law

Lower Appellate Court dismissed the suit on the ground that agreement was not enforceable as it contained some lands acquired by government

Validity

Even if parties agreed to private partition of their joint agriculture land, remedy of plaintiff / appellant for partition of his share laid before Revenue Officer under Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967

In absence of order by Revenue Officer under S.141 of Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967, requiring a party to approach a civil court, the civil Court could not have assumed jurisdiction

Express bar to jurisdiction of Civil Court under S.172 of Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967, could only be circumvented if plaintiff had demonstrated that case attracted one of the established exceptions to ouster plenary jurisdiction of civil Court

Such was not case of plaintiff / appellant that he had made application to Revenue Officer under S.147 Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967, for an order to affirm private partition or at least, no order was passed under Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967 was assailed by plaintiff / appellant

No ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Court by S.172 of Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967

High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court as Civil Court had wrongly assumed jurisdiction over the suit

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

2020 YLR 1446 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

Art. 100Suit for declarationPrivate partitionDocument more than thirty years oldPresumption of correctnessScope

Plaintiffs filed suit that private partition of suit property had been effected regarding which agreement had been executed whereas defendants filed suit for joint possession

Suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed whereas that of defendants was decreed

Validity

Presumption of correctness of document executed more than thirty years back was permissive and not imperative

Even a document was thirty years old and was produced from proper custody, Court was not bound to presume its genuineness

Court was to decide such presumption under Art. 100 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 in a judicious manner

Plaintiffs had admitted that defendant had constructed a building on the suit land in their presence

Plaintiffs were estopped by their conduct and they could not claim that the building be demolished

Plaintiffs could not claim any right on the basis of a document which had been violated on their behalf

Courts below had rightly not attached the presumption of truth to the document relied upon by the plaintiffs on the ground that same was more than thirty years old

Plaintiffs had failed to point out any mis-reading or non-reading of evidence in the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below

Second appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

2017 CLC 1629 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

Ss. 141 & 147Private partitionScopeSuit for declaration was instituted during pendency of petition for partition of land before Revenue OfficerPlaint was rejected on the ground that suit was not maintainableValidityPartition proceedings before the Revenue Court were pending with regard to suit property

Revenue Court was not only vested with the power of partition but question of title could also be determined by Revenue Officer as a Civil Court or same might be referred to the Civil Court

Partition privately effected, was subject to affirmation by the Revenue Officer

Any of the parties might approach the Revenue Officer for affirmation of such partition

Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court in circumstances.