Law: Co-operative Societies Act (VII of 1925)

Section: 70

Law: Cantonments Act, 1924

Section: 108

Law: Easements Act (V of 1882)

Section: 4

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 185(3)

(a) Cooperative Societies Act (VII of 1925)-------S. 70---Non-issuance of statutory notice---Effect---Suit against a society or its officers in respect of any act touching the business of the society is not competent under S.70 of Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 without issuing two months' notice prior to its institution.1996 SCMR 1195 ref.(b) Cooperative Societies Act (VII of 1925)-------S. 70---Expression "business"---Connotation---Expression "business" has to be interpreted comparatively in a broader sense because ordinarily the word includes all those activities, which are carried out by a particular party to achieve its objects for which it has been incorporated.(c) Cantonments Act (II of 1924)-------S. 108---Easements Act (V of 1882), S.4---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Right of easement---Onus to prove---Ownership of property---Dispute was with regard to use of roads and streets in the area of defendant Cooperative Society---Plaintiff developed a housing scheme adjacent to the housing scheme of the defendant---By constructing a wall, the defendant Society obstructed the plaintiff from using its roads and streets for access to the housing scheme built by the plaintiff---Plea raised by the plaintiff was that the roads and streets were the property of the Cantonment Board and the defendant could not obstruct the same---Defendant claimed that the roads and streets were its private property and the plaintiff could not claim right of use of the same---Suit was decreed by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiff and the was maintained by High Court---Validity--�Plaintiff had got its own entity, as such there was heavy burden on it to establish its legal right under Easements Act, 1882, or under any other provision of law to contend that the roads constricted by the defendant situated beyond the boundary wall which existed between both the Societies could be used by the plaintiff as a matter of right and the Trial Court without giving declaration could direct the defendant to demolish the wall---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider this aspect of the case.ORDER IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---This petition calls in…