The Lahore High Court overturned the earlier dismissals of Fazal Karim and his brothers' suit for permanent injunction.
بے شک! یہاں بیان کردہ قانونی کیس پر مبنی ایک آسان کہانی ہے:
تین بہن بھائی، فضل کریم اور ان کے دو بھائی، ایک ساتھ زمین کے ایک ٹکڑے کے مالک تھے۔ یہ جائیداد ان کی مشترکہ وراثت تھی
---
ہلچل سے بھرے شہر راولپنڈی میں، تین بہن بھائی، فضل کریم اور ان کے دو بھائی، ایک ساتھ زمین کے ایک ٹکڑے کے مالک تھے۔ یہ جائیداد ان کی مشترکہ وراثت تھی، اور اگرچہ ان میں سے ہر ایک کا حصہ تھا، لیکن انہوں نے ابھی تک رسمی طور پر زمین کی تقسیم نہیں کی تھی۔
ایک دن، بھائیوں نے دریافت کیا کہ محبوب خان، ایک پیشرو کے وارث، جائیداد میں تبدیلیاں کر رہے ہیں
- ایسے ڈھانچے بنا رہے ہیں جو اس کی قدر اور استعمال کو متاثر کر سکتے ہیں۔ پریشان، فضل کریم اور ان کے بھائیوں نے قانونی کارروائی کا فیصلہ کیا۔ وہ محبوب خان کو مزید تبدیلیاں کرنے سے روکنا چاہتے تھے جب تک کہ وہ اس بات پر متفق نہ ہو جائیں کہ زمین کی تقسیم کیسے کی جائے۔
بھائی عدالت گئے اور حکم امتناعی کے لیے مقدمہ دائر کیا،
بھائی عدالت گئے اور حکم امتناعی کے لیے مقدمہ دائر کیا، جو کسی کو کچھ کرنے سے روکنے کا قانونی حکم ہے۔ تاہم، محبوب خان نے دلیل دی کہ ان کا مقدمہ غلط ہے کیونکہ، ان کے مطابق، انہیں کوئی قانونی کارروائی کرنے سے پہلے پہلے جائیداد کی تقسیم کرنی چاہیے۔
بھائیوں کا مقدمہ یہ کہتے ہوئے خارج کر دیا
عدالت نے محبوب خان سے اتفاق کیا اور بھائیوں کا مقدمہ یہ کہتے ہوئے خارج کر دیا کہ وہ جائیداد کی باضابطہ تقسیم کی درخواست کر کے ہی اپنا مسئلہ حل کر سکتے ہیں۔
فیصلے کے خلاف اپیل کی، اور دلیل دی
بے خوف، فضل کریم اور اس کے بہن بھائیوں نے فیصلے کے خلاف اپیل کی، اور دلیل دی کہ شریک مالکان کے طور پر، انہیں پہلے جائیداد کی تقسیم کے بغیر اپنے حقوق کا تحفظ کرنے کے قابل ہونا چاہیے۔ انہوں نے پچھلے عدالتی فیصلوں کا حوالہ دیا جو ان کے موقف کی تائید کرتے تھے، یہ بتاتے ہوئے کہ شریک مالک ان تبدیلیوں کو روکنے کے لیے درحقیقت حکم امتناعی حاصل کر سکتا ہے جس سے ان کی مشترکہ جائیداد کو نقصان پہنچ سکتا ہے۔
کیس نے لاہور ہائی کورٹ کا رخ کیا
جہاں جج مرزا وقاص رؤف نے دلائل کا جائزہ لیا۔ جج نے پایا کہ نچلی عدالتوں نے غلطی کی ہے۔ قانون نے شریک مالکان کو فوری تقسیم کے بغیر اپنے مفادات کے تحفظ کے لیے حکم امتناعی کے لیے مقدمہ دائر کرنے کی اجازت دی۔
ہائی کورٹ نے فضل کریم اور ان کے بھائیوں کے حق میں فیصلہ سناتے ہوئے سابقہ فیصلوں کو کالعدم قرار دے دیا۔ عدالت نے ہدایت کی کہ ان کے مقدمے پر دوبارہ غور کیا جائے اور انہیں محبوب خان کی طرف سے کی جانے والی تبدیلیوں کے خلاف تحفظ حاصل کرنے کی اجازت دی جائے جب تک کہ جائیداد کی صحیح تقسیم نہیں ہو جاتی۔
اس طرح، بھائیوں کی اپنی مشترکہ جائیداد کی حفاظت کے لیے جدوجہد جاری رہی، جو اس اصول کی عکاسی کرتی ہے کہ ہر شریک مالک کو تقسیم کو حل کیے بغیر اپنے حصے کی حفاظت کا حق حاصل ہے۔
شریک مالک کو تقسیم کو حل کیے بغیر اپنے حصے کی حفاظت کا حق حاصل ہے۔
2018 کے C.R.No.212-D میں فیصلہ اس بات سے متعلق ہے کہ آیا کسی پراپرٹی کا شریک حصہ دار یا شریک مالک دوسرے شریک حصہ دار کے خلاف حکم امتناعی کا مقدمہ برقرار رکھ سکتا ہے۔ یہاں ایک خلاصہ ہے:
1. **پس منظر*
*: درخواست گزاروں، جائیداد کے شریک مالکان نے جائیداد کی نوعیت میں کسی قسم کی تبدیلی کو روکنے کے لیے جواب دہندگان کے پیشرو محبوب خان کے خلاف مستقل حکم امتناعی کا دعویٰ دائر کیا۔ مقدمے کو سول جج نے آرڈر VII رول 11 سی پی سی کے تحت قابل برقرار نہ ہونے کی وجہ سے خارج کر دیا تھا۔ برطرفی کو ایڈیشنل ڈسٹرکٹ جج نے برقرار رکھا۔
2. **قانونی سوال*
*: کیا ایک شریک حصہ دار جائیداد کی تقسیم کی کوشش کیے بغیر اپنے حقوق کے تحفظ کے لیے دوسرے شریک شریک کے خلاف حکم امتناعی کا مقدمہ برقرار رکھ سکتا ہے۔
3. **سپریم کورٹ کی نظیریں**:
- **علی گوہر خان بمقابلہ شیر ایاز**: شریک حصہ دار کو حکم امتناعی حاصل کرنے کا حق ہے اگر کوئی دوسرا شریک حصہ دار بغیر تقسیم کے جائیداد کی نوعیت کو تبدیل کرنے کی کوشش کرتا ہے۔
- **اختر نواز خان بمقابلہ دانیال خان**: شریک شراکت دار ایک دوسرے کو جائیداد کی نوعیت کو تبدیل کرنے سے روک سکتے ہیں، لیکن تقسیم کا سوٹ معمول کا علاج ہے۔
- **محمد رفیق بمقابلہ سردار**: مشترکہ ملکیت کی اجازت بغیر تقسیم کے حقوق کے اعلان کے لیے۔
- ** محترمہ روشن آرا بیگم بمقابلہ محمد بنارس**: شریک شیئرر کی طرف سے دوسرے شریک شریک کے خلاف حکم امتناعی کا مقدمہ قابل عمل ہے۔
4. **عدالتی فیصلہ**
: لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے یہ نتیجہ اخذ کیا کہ شریک شیئرر واقعتاً حکم امتناعی کے لیے مقدمہ دائر کر سکتا ہے تاکہ مشترکہ جائیداد میں ردوبدل یا رضامندی کے بغیر تعمیرات کو روکا جا سکے۔ عدالت نے پایا کہ نچلی عدالتوں نے مقدمہ خارج کرنے میں غلطی کی ہے۔
5. **نتیجہ**
: ہائی کورٹ نے پہلے کے احکامات کو ایک طرف رکھ دیا اور اس مقدمے پر سینئر سول جج کو دوبارہ غور کرنے کی ہدایت کی۔
Must read judgement
reo.HCJDA 38.
JUDGMENT SHEET.
LAHORE HIGH COURT
RAWALPINDI BENCH, RAWALPINDI.
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
C.R.No.212-D of 2018.
Fazal Karim & 2 others.
Versus.
Mehboob Khan (deceased) through his legal heirs.
JUDGMENT.
Mirza Viqas Rauf, J. This petition under section 115 of the
Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908) (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”)
stems out from the order dated 26th February, 2018, whereby the learned
Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, while dismissing the appeal preferred
by the petitioners, affirmed the judgment and decree dated 19th February,
2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Rawalpindi, resulting into dismissal
of suit instituted by the petitioners, being not competent. Since suit instituted
by the petitioners is dismissed while invoking the provisions of Order VII
Rule 11 “CPC”, so leaving desultory details apart, only necessary facts are
to be highlighted.
2.
Being the co-owner of the suit property, the petitioners instituted
a suit for permanent injunction, which was resisted by Mehboob Khan,
predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, who instead of submitting the
written statement, moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 “CPC” on
the ground that suit is barred by law and it is not maintainable. The
application was though contested by the petitioners but it was accepted by
way of order dated 19th February, 2018. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners
preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge,
C.R.No.212-D of 2018
Rawalpindi but of no avail and the appeal was dismissed in limine through
impugned order dated 26th February, 2018, hence this petition.
3.
On the first date of its presentation, the petition was admitted for
regular hearing on 5th March, 2018 and thereafter by way of order dated
24th November, 2021, following question was framed: -
“As to whether a suit for injunction simpliciter inter-se cosharers/co-owners is proceedable or otherwise?
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, while addressing the above
question, submitted that even a co-owner can institute a suit for injunction
for the protection of his proprietary and possessory rights. He added that the
petitioners have been non-suited on extraneous grounds. In support of his
contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on MUHAMMAD RAFIQ
and others v. SARDAR and others (2004 SCMR 1036) and ALI GOHAR
KHAN v. SHER AYAZ and others (1989 SCMR 130).
5.
Conversely, learned counsel for the “respondents” submitted that
a co-sharer/co-owner is precluded to institute a suit for injunction and he
has only a remedy to seek partition from the Court of law. It is added that
findings of both the Courts below are concurrent and unexceptionable.
Reliance to this effect is placed on AKHTAR NAWAZ KHAN, ETC. v.
DANIAL KHAN, ETC. (NLR 1995 SCJ 169) and ASHIQ HUSSAIN v. Prof.
MUHAMMAD ASLAM and 9 others (2004 MLD 1844).
6.
Heard. Record perused.
7.
The moot point involved in this case is as to whether a cosharer/co-owner can institute a suit for injunction for the protection of his
rights without seeking partition. The above question, for the first time, came
under discussion before Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of ALI
GOHAR KHAN v. SHER AYAZ and others supra. The relevant extract from
the same is reproduced below: -
“6.
The sole question which needs consideration in
this case is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present
suit a decree for perpetual injunction can be issued. As the
record stands, the respondents had purchased a portion of the
land from a joint Khata and dumped stones for raising
C.R.No.212-D of 2018
construction over the same. The report of the Commissioner
though may not be germane to the pleadings of the parties but is
relevant to the extent that the suit property is jointly owned by the
parties and no partition in any form has yet taken place.
Furthermore, the fact that the property in suit is joint and no
private partition amongst the parties has taken place stands
finally decided by the Civil Judge vide his order dated 9-1-1975.
Therefore, it can be said without any fear of contradiction that
the parties are co-sharers in the suit property. The question now
is whether a co-sharer in such a situation can deal with a joint
property in the manner he likes without the express permission of
other co-sharers and to their detriment. The answer obviously is
in the negative as it is a settled principle of law that in case of
joint immovable property each co-sharer is interested in every
inch of the subject-matter irrespective of the quantity of his
interest. A co-sharer thus will not be allowed to act in a manner
which constitutes an invasion on the right of the other
co-sharers. A co-sharer in possession of a portion of the joint
property, therefore, cannot change the nature of the property in
his possession unless partition takes place by metes and bounds.
In the circumstances we think the learned District Judge was
justified in law in passing a decree of perpetual injunction in
favour of the appellant.”
8.
Latter in the case of AKHTAR NAWAZ KHAN, ETC. v. DANIAL
KHAN, ETC. supra, a learned Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan
comprising of three Hon’ble Judges, with a majority view, held as under: -
“There is no cavil with the proposition enunciated from
time to time that every joint owner is interested in every inch of
the joint property so long as partition by metes and bounds does
not take place among the co-sharers and each individual cosharer is allotted his exclusive share and that every co-sharer has
the right to stop the other co-sharers from changing the nature of
the property to his detriment. It is equally well-established by now
that every co-sharer in possession of the joint property to the
extent of his share in the entire joint property has a right to make
use of it in the manner he likes without hindrance by the other
co-sharers and if they feel aggrieved by the conversion of the
user by the co-sharers, their remedy is to go for the partition and
get their share separated.”
9.
In the case of MUHAMMAD RAFIQ and others v. SARDAR and
others supra, the Supreme Court of Pakistan, however, reiterated the
principles laid down in the case of ALI GOHAR KHAN v. SHER AYAZ and
others supra in the following manner: -
“2. The dispute relates to inheritance of one Nawab. The
respondents were admittedly his daughters whereas the present
petitioners are his collaterals being heirs of his brother. It was
held that after the death of Nawab, the land was inherited by his
widow Mst. Hakam Bibi/mother of the respondents as limited
owner and on the termination of her limited interest, the property
C.R.No.212-D of 2018
devolved on the heirs of last male owner i.e. Nawab, under the
Muslim Law. Since Nawab had not left any male heir therefore,
his two daughters were declared to be the owners of the property
by way of inheritance according to the shares allocated to them
as daughters under the Mohammedan Law and the remaining
property was inherited by the respondents as collaterals. These
findings have been recorded by all the Courts below and we do
not find any reason as to why the present petitioners have filed
this petition.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
only objection which the petitioners wanted to agitate was that
since the respondents were not in possession of the property,
therefore, the suit for mere declaration without prayer for
consequential relief of possession was not maintainable.
4.
We are afraid, the argument is plainly unsound. The heirs
of Nawab had become joint owners of the property after the
termination of limited interest of Hakam Bibi therefore, it was a
case of joint ownership and suit for declaration by one of the
joint owners that they were also owners in the property which
right was being denied to them, was maintainable.
5.
It was not necessary for any of the joint owners, to have
claimed partition of the joint property at present as it could be
claimed by any of the joint owners during the currency of joint
ownership without limitation of any period in that behalf so long
as the right of any of the joint owners was not denied which was
not in dispute in this case.”
10.
The question framed hereinabove also came under discussion
before this Court in the case of ASHIQ HUSSAIN v. Prof. MUHAMMAD
ASLAM and 9 others supra and it was resolved as under: -
“6.
…Mere reading of aforesaid contents of the plaint
clearly shows that petitioner has not impleaded all the co-sharers
as defendants in the suit. Therefore, First Appellate Court was
justified to non-suit the petitioner which is in accordance with
the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Khaleeq
Ahmad v. Abdul Ghani and others (PLD 1973 SC 214). The
relevant observation is as under:
"A suit for possession can be brought by all the coowners jointly. It is open however, to one of them also to
sue for possession but he must join the other co-owners as
defendants and the decree will be for joint possession and
not in favour of the plaintiff only."
The First Appellate Court was justified that suit of the petitioner
was not maintainable against the other co-sharers except by
bringing a suit for partition of joint property as the law laid down
by the Division Bench of this Court in Muhammad Shafi's case
(1979 CLC 230). The relevant observation is as follows:
"There is thus ample authority for the proposition that if
a co-sharer has been in exclusive possession of a certain
C.R.No.212-D of 2018
portion of the joint property for a long period, he cannot
be dispossessed therefrom by another co-sharer except by
bringing a suit for partition of the joint property."
The aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this Court was
considered and approved by the Honourable Supreme Court in
Mst. Resham Bibi's case (1999 SCMR 2325). The aforesaid
provision of law is also supported by the law laid down in
"Munshi and 2 others v. Muhammad Shafi and 30 others" (1966
Law Notes (Lahore) 58). The First Appellate Court has reversed
the finding of the trial Court after proper appreciation of
evidence on record in First Appeal which is the prerogative of the
First Appellate Court to reappraise the evidence as Appellate
Court to come to his own conclusion on the basis of evidence
adduced before the trial Court by the parties and resultantly he
could competently reverse the finding of the trial Court on the
question of fact in issues in question. The First Appellate Court
has reversed the finding with cogent reasons after reappraisal of
the evidence on record as is evident from para. No.8 of the
impugned judgment. It is established proposition of law that
findings on question of fact or law howsoever, erroneous the
same may be recorded by a Court of competent jurisdiction
cannot be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its
revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Unless such
findings suffers from jurisdictional defect, illegality or material
irregularity as per principle laid down by the Privy Council in
N.S. Venkatagiri Ayyangar and another v. The Hindu Religious
Endowments Board Madras (PLD 1949 Privy Council 26). The
aforesaid judgment was considered and followed by this Court in
Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Lahore v. Syed
Khalid Mahmood (1985 CLC 657) which is upheld by the
Honourable Supreme Court in unreported judgment dated 31-3-
1985 passed in C.P. No.1146 of 1984. Learned counsel of the
petitioner failed to point out any infirmity or illegality in the
impugned judgment and also did not bring the case within the
parameters prescribed by the Privy Council in the aforesaid
judgment.
11.
The above view was further affirmed in the case of Mst. ROSHAN
ARA BEGUM and 8 others v. MUHAMMAD BANARAS and another (2016
YLR 1300). The relevant extract from the same is reproduced below: -
“6.
Learned lower appellate court has rightly held that
respondent No.1 purchased the disputed shop from a cosharer/paternal aunt. Hence, he also became a co-sharer in the
joint property. Furthermore, it is established law that a cosharer cannot file a suit for declaration and possession against
the other co-sharer but a suit for partition can only be filed. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case reported as Mst.
Sanobar Sultan and others v. Obaidullah Khan and others (PLD
2009 SC 71) has held as under:--
"A purchaser of a share out of a joint property
having become a co- owner, his status as a tenant
ceases and his possession will become that of a co-
C.R.No.212-D of 2018
owner who falls within the definition of a
landlord. A co-sharer is entitled to retain the
possession of the joint property till partition."
12.
In the wake of survey of law on the subject, I find that in the case
of FAZAL and others v. GHULAM MUHAMMAD and others (2003 SCMR
999), Bench comprising of three Hon’ble Judges of Supreme Court of
Pakistan held that suit for permanent injunction is maintainable on behalf of
co-sharer/co-owner.
13.
After having a wade through the principles laid down from time to
time with regard to the proposition in hand, it evinces that the question
framed hereinabove is not so frizzy or ticklish. Law is consistent to this effect
that every co-sharer/co-owner is owner in each and every inch of the joint
property until it is partitioned by metes and bounds. It is also an oft repeated
principle of law that a co-sharer/co-owner cannot change the nature of the
joint property or raise construction without consent of the other cosharers/co-owners. If a co-sharer is dispossessed from the joint property in
his/her possession by any other co-sharer, the remedy lies for regaining
his/her possession either in a suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act,
1877 or by way of a suit for partition.
14.
The matter, however, would become different in a case when a cosharer intends to change the nature of the joint holding or threatens the
other co-sharers to divest from their right in the joint property as co-owner.
In such a case, such co-owner can institute a suit for injunction restraining
the former from changing the nature of the joint land or raising any
construction upon the same. In the said eventuality, it is for the former to
first of all get the joint land partitioned. In the present case, the principles
laid down in FAZAL and others v. GHULAM MUHAMMAD and others
supra are clearly attracted and as such the trial Court as well as the
appellate Court have erred in law while dismissing the suit being not
maintainable and barred by law.
15.
For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed. As a result,
impugned orders dated 19th February, 2018 and 26th February, 2018 are set
aside being tainted with illegalities and material irregularities. As a
C.R.No.212-D of 2018
consequence, the suit instituted by the petitioners shall be deemed to be
pending before the learned Senior Civil Judge (Civil Division), Rawalpindi,
who shall either decide the same by his own or entrust it to any other Court
of competent jurisdiction. Needless to observe that the Court seized with the
matter shall decide the suit afresh on its own merits, strictly in accordance
with law. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Senior Civil
Judge (Civil Division), Rawalpindi on 15.04.2023.
(MIRZA VIQAS RAUF)
JUDGE
Dictated:
21.03.2023
Signed
31.03.2023.
Approved for reporting
JUDGE
Announced in open Court on 31.03.2023.
JUDGE