| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2001 SLG 2439 2001 SLD 2439 2001 CLC 777 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No.220-D of 2000, decision dated: 26-05-2000
GHULAM MAHMOOD QURESHI, J
Muhammad Riaz Lone for Petitioners
Civil Revision No.220-D of 2000, decision dated: 26-05-2000
GHULAM MAHMOOD QURESHI, J
Muhammad Riaz Lone for Petitioners
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector, District Mianwali and 4 others
VS
ASHIQ HUSSAIN and another
Law:
Section:
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction---Trial Court decreed suit to the extent of ownership of land in dispute, but dismissed to the extent of ownership of trees grown on said land, but on filing appeal against and decree of Trial Court, Appellate Court decreed suit with regard to ownership of trees also- --Validity---Defendants having not disputed ownership of plaintiff with regard to land on which trees were grown ownership of trees standing on said land would automatically vest in plaintiff---Appellate Court, in circumstances', was justified in reversing findings of Trial Court with, regard to trees standing on land of plaintiff. Government of N.-W.F.P. through Deputy Commissioner, Bannu and 2 others v. Muhammad Khan alias Aan 1990 CLC 1898 ref. ORDER The respondents filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioners to restrain them from interfering in his possession and ownership of land measuring 45 Kanals and 60 Marlas in Khatas Nos. 113 and 114 situated in Chak No.2/ML, Tehsil Piplan, District Mianwali. The suit was contested by the petitioner/defendant and to written statement filed by them they alleged that the suit of respondents/plaintiffs is liable for dismissal under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. and that the respondents/ plaintiffs had no cause of action and locus standi to file the suit; that the suit is barred by time and that the suit was incorrectly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction. It was further alleged that the respondents had no concern with the disputed trees as the same, were allegedly sown by the Forest Department and were standing on the land owned by Canal Department. The learned trial Court framed the following issues:------ (1) Whether the plaint is liable to rejection under Order VII, Rule 11, C PC ?OPD (2) Whether the plaintiffs' suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD (3) Whether the plaintiffs have no concern with the disputed trees? OPD (4) Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction, if so, what is the correct valuation of the suit property? OPD (5) Whether the…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492