Case Details

Citation(s)
2013 SLG 2395 2013 SLD 2395 2013 YLR 499
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 1882 of 2010, decided on 23rd June, 2010
MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J
Muhammad Ikram Chaudhry for Petitioner. Imran Sarwar for
Respondents. Nos. 1 and 2

MUMTAZ ALI

VS

GHULAM HUSSAIN and 4 others

Law:

Section:

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 54,55 & 56(a)---Suit for perpetual and mandatory injunction---Suit of petitioner was dismissed by Trial Court on the ground that suit for permanent injunction was not maintainable till the partition of the property, and order of Trial Court was affirmed by Appellate Court---Petitioner contended that respondents had made statements confirming that they will sell the property according to the share in their possession, and will not sell any property in excess of their share as such Trial Court should have decreed the suit as there was no need to record any further evidence---Validity---Where a specific remedy was available, suit under S.56(a) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 was not maintainable, but in the present case, petitioner was claiming that he was in possession of the property according to his own share, and although share of petitioner was unpartitioned, he had every right to retain the possession---Grievance of petitioner being only that respondents should not eject him from the property in his possession , petitioner was entitled for the said relief when it was admitted that the petitioner and respondents were joint-owners of suit property---Trial Court had dismissed the suit without attending to such aspect of the case---Dismissal of suit by court below meant that the court had allowed the respondents to dispossess the petitioner forcibly without due process of law---High Court modified s of the courts below to the extent that the petitioner should not be dispossessed forcibly except in due course of law---Revision was allowed , accordingly. ORDER MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.---The petitioner filed a suit for perpetual/mandatory injunction against the respondents claiming that respondents are co-owners with him in the suit property and they have no authority to dispossess him from the joint property. He further submits that the property is still unpartitioned and as such the respondents have no right to dispossess the petitioner being joint owner. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties dismissed the suit holding that a suit for permanent injunction is not…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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