 |
| Taqseem of joint khata |
2024 C L C 699
[Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench)]
Before Mirza Viqas Rauf, J
FAZAL KARIM and 2 others----Petitioners
Versus
MEHBOOB KHAN (Deceased) through his Legal Heirs----Respondent
Civil Revision No.212-D of 2018, decided on 31st March, 2023.
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---
----Ss.54 & 19---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) , O. VII, R. 11---Suit for permanent injunction filed by co-owner / co-sharer of suit-property---Maintainability---Whether a suit for injunction simpliciter inter-se co-sharers/co-owners was proceedable or otherwise---Civil Court dismissed the suit instituted by petitioners by invoking the provisions of O. VII, R. 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and the Appellate Court affirmed the said order---Validity---Question was as to whether a co-sharer/ co-owner could institute a suit for injunction for the protection of his rights without seeking partition---Every co-sharer/co-owner was owner in each and every inch of the joint property until it was partitioned by metes and bounds---Co-sharer/co-owner could not change the nature of the joint property or raise construction without consent of the other co-sharers/co-owners---If a co-sharer was dispossessed from the joint property in his/her possession by any other co-sharer, the remedy lay for regaining his/her possession either in a suit under S.9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, or by way of a suit for partition---Matter, however, would become different in a case when a co-sharer intended to change the nature of the joint holding or threatened the other co-sharers to divest them from their right in the joint property as co-owner; in such a case, such co-owner could 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 was for the former to first of all get the joint land partitioned---In the present case, as such the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court had erred in law while dismissing the suit being not maintainable and barred by law---High Court set-aside impugned orders passed by both the Courts below and remanded the case before the Civil Court for its adjudication on merits---Revision was allowed, in circumstances.
Ali Gohar Khan v. Sher Ayaz and others 1989 SCMR 130; Muhammad Rafiq and others v. Sardar and others 2004 SCMR 1036; Ashiq Hussain v. Prof. Muhammad Aslam and 9 others 2004 MLD 1844; Mst. Roshan Ara Begum and 8 others v. Muhammad Banaras and another 2016 YLR 1300 and Fazal and others v. Ghulam Muhammad and others 2003 SCMR 999 ref.
Sardar Asmat Ullah Khan for Petitioners.
Mirza Saqlain Abid for Respondents.
No comments:
Post a Comment