Revenue case in civil, held that the civil courts were not completely barred from hearing matters relating to the ownership of agricultural land.
 |
| held that the civil courts were not completely barred from hearing matters relating to the ownership of agricultural land. |
سندھ میں زرعی زمین کے تنازعات اور سول عدالتوں کا دائرہ اختیار
وراثتی زمین میں حصص اور دعوے
ہبہ/تحفہ یا حصص کی دستبرداری
سول عدالت میں نظرثانی (Revisional Jurisdiction)
عدالت کے حوالہ جات
خلاصہ
یہ کیس قانون کے تین اہم پہلوؤں پر روشنی ڈالتا ہے:
1. سندھ لینڈ ریونیو ایکٹ، 1967 (S.172):
2. اسپیسفک ریلیف ایکٹ (Ss. 8 & 42) - ہبہ یا شراکت سے دستبرداری:
3. سی پی سی (S.115) - نظرثانی کا دائرہ اختیار
نتیجہ
Must read the judgement
2024 C L C 311
[Sindh (Larkana Bench)]
Before Arbab Ali Hakro, J
REHMATULLAH and others----Applicants
Versus
INAYAT KHOSO and others----Respondents
Civil Revision No.S-42 of 2022, decided on 11th May, 2023.
(a) Sindh Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)---
----S.172---Jurisdiction of Civil Court---Scope---Dispute over ownership of agriculture land---There was no complete bar against civil Courts to entertain matters relating to agriculture land dispute---Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967 ('Act') did not prohibit the Civil Court from determining the title of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 to all land held jointly or from granting a declaration of joint ownership in disputed agricultural land---Plaintiff/respondent No. 1 was seeking relief for declaration regarding his share to the extent of 14-00 Acres from the suit land being the son of deceased and partition and separate possession of his share from the suit land---Applicants had denied his share in the suit land and refused to give him a share of the produce, therefore, the provisions of the Act did not support the disputation of the applicants that the suit of respondent No. 1 was barred---Apparently, Revenue Courts did not confer jurisdiction in partition proceedings where question of title was involved amongst the parties as envisaged in the provision of the Act---Suit of the respondent No. 1 was rightly decreed---Revision petition was accordingly dismissed.
Nazir Ahmad and another v. Maula Bakhsh 1987 SCMR 61 and Messrs Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited (SNGPL) v. Messrs Noor CNG Filling Station 2022 SCMR 1501 rel.
(b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---
----Ss. 8 & 42---Suit for declaration and partition---Gift/hiba---Relinquishment of share---Proof---Father of the respondent No. 1 and applicants was owner of land measuring 92 acres (suit land), who passed away---Respondent No. 1 had claimed that applicants 1 and 2 were in possession of suit land, cultivating and enjoying the yield from the suit land, without paying respondent No. 1 his rightful share---Suit was decreed by the Trial Court in favour of respondent No. 1---Applicants filed appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court but same was also dismissed---Validity---Record showed that the findings of the appellate Court were based on the oral evidence of Revenue Officials and produced documentary evidence viz: mutation entries in the record of rights of respective Dehs---Applicants were unable to point out any illegality committed by the appellate Court in exercising its jurisdiction vested under the law---Only contention was that respondent No. 1 had already received his due Shariah share from the estate of deceased by way of Hiba/Gift during his lifetime, thus he was not entitled to any share as claimed in the suit---In that regard, the applicants had failed to produce pictorial evidence to show that the respondent No. 1/plaintiff relinquished his Shariah share in the suit land through Gift/Hiba in the residual estate left by the deceased---Diversely, scanning of the documentary evidence i.e. mutation entries did not reflect that respondent No. 1 had abdicated his share in suit land on the basis of said Gift/Hiba---In absence of a valid gift or relinquishment of lawful share in an inheritance under Muslim Personal Law, it could not be said whether the respondent No. 1/plaintiff relinquished his share in subject property---Suit of the respondent No. 1 was rightly decreed---Revision petition was accordingly dismissed.
Noor Muhammad and others v. Allah Ditta and others PLD 2009 SC 198; Khamiso Khan and 6 others v. Jamaluddin 2015 MLD 356; Qamar Sultan and others v. Mst.Bibi Sufaidan and others 2012 SCMR 695; Jamaluddin and 3 others vs. Haji Gul Khan and 6 others 2012 CLC 353; Irshad alias Abdul Rahim and 2 others v. Ashiq Hussain PLD 2007 Kar. 421; Naveed Ahmad v. Iqbal Begum and others 2006 YLR 2341 and Syed Musarrat Shah and another v. Syed Ahmed Shah alias Lal Bacha and 8 others PLD 2012 Pesh. 151 ref.
Mst. Parveen (Deceased) through LRs v. Muhammad Pervaiz and others 2022 SCMR 64 ref.
(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----S.115---Revisional jurisdiction---Concurrent findings---Scope---Concurrent findings of two courts below supporting all a preponderance of claims were not to be interfered in revisional jurisdiction, unless extraordinary circumstances were demonstrated by the applicants---Revisional Court did not sit in reappraisal of the evidence and was thus distinguishable from a Court of the appellate jurisdiction.
Waqar Ahmed Chandio for Applicants.
Rajesh Naraindas D. Kapoor for Respondent No.1.
Abdul Waris Bhutto, Assistant Advocate General for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.