Co-Owner

Co-owner of the joint property who, despite possessing knowledge of an "actual denial of his right", refrains from challenging the said invasion of his right within the stipulated period of limitation, is denuded of the right to challenge the same

Similarly, in cases of joint property, where the third party interest is created and reflected in subsequent revenue records (Jamabandi), the same would not give rise to a renewed cause of action since it amounts to the actual denial of his right.

Special Judge (Rent), after observing that the petitioner was a co-owner had fallen in error in assuming that he could not maintain an eviction application

Every co-owner was entitled to receive rent of the premises as landlord and if one co-owner had not let out the property, but some other co-owner or the person entitled to receive rent had, then by legal fiction every co-owner of the property would be deemed to be landlord and competent to maintain ejectment application on any ground available to him under the law and even without joining other co-owners as applicants, if the ground of ejectment was otherwise available

Tenant could not be permitted to escape eviction simply because one of the co-owners had come to his rescue to save him from default, if other grounds were available

Eviction petition, in the present case, was filed on the ground of default and expiry of tenancy

Tenancy being oral and month to month had expired

Filing of eviction petition was a notice of eviction and, resultantly, the petitioner was entitled to eviction of tenant on the ground of expiry of the tenancy

View taken by Special Judge (Rent) as also by the District Judge being based on incorrect assumption of law was, as such, legally untenable and the findings were inconsequence declared to be without lawful authority

Constitutional petition was allowed and the tenant was directed to vacate the rented premises.

Possession of each co-owner would be constructive possession of the other joint owners.

Rationale.

Co-Owner One of the joint owners if deals with the property in the ordinary circumstances, would not adversely affect the other joint owner's rights in the property.

In case of joint immovable property, every co-sharer would be deemed to have ownership right in every part of property and one co-sharer could not change nature of property.

Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether co-owner in excessive "Hissadari" possession of specific Khasra number in joint holding comprising of several Khasra numbers could have been restrained from use of land when adequate remedy to ask for partition of joint holding was available

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3).

Gift of undivided share in joint property which was capable of division would be valid even if share transferred was not divided and delivered to donee, where such gift was made by one co-sharer to another and donee had taken joint possession of property in place of donor

Donor being admittedly owner of specified area of Shamilat land could not make gift of more than that area in favour of his sons (donees) which he did on the strength of his alleged possession over an excess area of joint land on the pretext that he could retain its possession being a co-sharer till the partition of Shamilat land

Gift in question could only be valid to the extent to the donor's ownership in Shamilat.

Parties agreed that their dispute was effectively resolved through a settlement arrived at between contestants before Chief Controller of Buildings

Such settlement was taken on record

In spite of consensus between parties that dispute could still be resolved in terms of agreement, they expressed doubt that some of those terms might be unworkable in that guarantee amount had not been disclosed therein

Terms relating to provisions of guarantee were substituted with the consensus of parties and mode for resolving the points of controversy was spelt out

Revision as also suit from which revision had arisen, were disposed of in terms of agreement between the parties

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115.

Purchaser of a share out of a j6nt property having become a co-owner, his status as a tenant in such property would cease and his possession would become that of a co-owner.

Co-owners/co-sharers presumed to be owner in possession of each inch of land shown in joint Khata.

Co-Owner Suit for share of produce-Person recorded as co-owner-Entitled to file suit.