Division of Property
Division of Property legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Division of property-Property in dispute divided in course of litigation into 9 units and each unit transferred to its respective occupant Petitioner, held, possessed no locus stands to question transfer of units not in his occupation.-[Locus stands].
Art. 199 read with Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 2-Writ jurisdiction-Division of property-Held, sole discretion of Settlement Authorities and cannot be interfered with by High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction.-[Jurisdiction].
"Division of Property", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/15051
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Division of Property"
1985 S C M R 615
KHURSHID ALAM — Appellant Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LYALLPUR and 2 others — Respondents
Court: High Court1978 S C M R 446
Shahzada MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN-Petitioner Versus Mst. HANIFA BEGUM AND OTHERS-Respondents
Court: High Court2005 Y L R 1954
ABDUL GHAFAR — Petitioner Versus SHAFQAT ALI, ADDITIONAL JUDGE, SHEIKHUPURA and 8 others — Respondents
Court: Lahore1982 C L C 837
ABDUL SATTAR ABBASI‑Petitioner Versus Mst. RAFIQUE BEGUM AND 7 OTHERS‑‑Respondents
Court: Lahore1989SCMR1014
UMAR DIN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus ALI MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Respondents
Court: High Court1983SCM R7
REHMAT KHAN-Petitioner Versus Mst. SARDAR BIBI AND OTHERS-Respondents
Court: ----Division of property-Property in dispute divided in course of litiga tion into 9 units and each unit transferred to its respective occupant Petitioner, held, possessed no locus stands to question transfer of units not in his occupation.-Locus stands.1988 S C M R 1013
TUFAIL AHMAD KHAN‑‑Appellant Versus Mst. RASHIDAN BEGUM and others‑‑Respondents
Court: High Court1982 S C M R 969
HASSAN MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS Respondents
Court: ----Art. 199 read with Displaced Persons (Compensation and Re habilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 2-Writ jurisdiction-Division of property-Held, sole discretion of Settlement Authorities and cannot be interfered with by High Court in its constitutional jurisdic tion.-Jurisdiction.P L D 1981 Lahore 766
Syed TAHIR HUSSAIN MASHHADI‑Appellant Versus Syed NAZAR ABBAS MASHHADI AND ANOTHER — Respondents
Court: ‑‑ Para. 10‑Divisibility of property‑Order of Settlement Commis sioner showing that he was fully conscious of appeal being time‑barred and after giving his anxious consideration to question of limitation, declaring property as divisible into two independent portions‑Held, such order cannot be taken exception to on ground of Settlement Commissioner having not dealt with question of limitation‑Syed Azmat Ali v. The Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore and others P L D 1964 S C 260 held not applicable.2006 M L D 735
ABDUL LATIF — Petitioner Versus SHAUKAT ALI and 2 others — Respondents
Court: Peshawar