Execution court can't interfere in decree
 |
| Execution court can't interfere in decree |
تعارفِ مقدمہ
پس منظر
عملدرآمد میں اعتراض
نچلی عدالتوں کی کارروائی
بنیادی قانونی سوال
عدالت کا مؤقف
خریداری کا اثر
قبضہ کی حیثیت
حتمی فیصلہ
قانونی اصول
Must read judgement
2024 C L C 630
[Lahore]
Before Anwaar Hussain, J
Mst. KANEEZ BATOOL----Petitioner
Versus
ALLAH BUKHSH and another----Respondents
Civil Revision No.40110 of 2022, heard on 16th March, 2023.
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---
----S. 8---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 47---Suit for recovery of possession---Execution proceedings, objection to---Respondents / judgment debtors filed objection against execution proceedings on the ground that they had become co-sharers in suit property---Executing Court dismissed the objection but Lower Appellate Court allowed the same---Validity---By leading credible evidence, petitioner / decree holder validly proved her entitlement in respect of property in dispute clearly described in plaint and falling in a particular Khata/Khewat---Petitioner / decree holder proved unlawful occupation thereof by respondents/judgment debtors and such findings were upheld by Lower Appellate Court as well as High Court---Such findings during trial could not be brushed aside in execution proceedings as Executing Court could not go beyond the decree---Petitioner / decree holder could not be compelled to approach relevant forum for partition of joint Khata/Khewaton the basis of changed circumstances---Suit property was purchased by respondents/judgment debtors through registered document and the same would amount to adding to agony of a litigant/decree holder who successfully proved her title against an illegal occupant, i.e., respondents/judgment debtors---Respondents / judgment debtors, after purchase of some share/property through registered sale deed in joint Khata/Khewat, stepped into the shoes of vendor---Even if the vendor was acknowledged as co-sharer in Khata/Khewat, he could not transfer a better title then he himself had---Vendor or his mother were not in possession of suit property when the suit was instituted by petitioner / decree holder or even subsequent thereto---High Court set aside the order passed by Lower Appellate Court and that of Lower Appellate Court was restored---Revision was allowed, in circumstances.
Allah Ditta v. Ahmed Ali Shah and others 2003 SCMR 1202; Abdul Ghani v. Ghulam Abbas Tamanna and others 2015 CLC 89; Muhammad Aslam (Through his L.R.) v. Wazir Muhammad PLD 1985 SC 46 and Dilshad Begum v. Mst. Nisar Akhtar 2012 SCMR 1106 ref.
Nazir Ahmed v. Mst. Sardar Bibi and others 1989 SCMR 913; Ramdas v. Sitabai and others (2009) 7 SCC 444 and Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Muhammad Saeed PLD 1961 SC 192 rel.
Muhammad Yasrab Hunjra for Petitioner.
Ch. Rab Nawaz for Respondents