Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 1382 2016 SLD 1382 2016 MLD 80
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 1633 of 2011, heard on 18th January, 2013. Date of hearing: 18th January, 2013.
AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, JUSTICE
Sardar Ghulam Baqir Dogar for Petitioners. Ch. Riasat Ali for
Respondent No. 6.

MST. BUSHRA BIBI AND OTHERS ERS

VS

HIDAYATULLAH AND OTHERS --Respondent

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) --------- ----------S.42 --------- Suit for declaration --------- When share in the Khata has been transferred through mutation, then no question of transfer of specific property from joint Khata arises and if the purchasers are in possession of specific property, the remedy for the party lies anywhere else and a party cannot challenge the and decree which has been passed in favour of that party. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) --------- ----------S.115 --------- Revision --------- Scope --------- When findings were recorded in accordance with law and fact on record, then there is no need to interfere while exercising revisional jurisdiction. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, JUSTICE:---------- Through this civil revision, petitioners have challenged the judgment & decree dated 22.02.2011 passed by learned Addl: District Judge, Gujranwala, whereby the appeal filed by them was dismissed, and the judgment & decree dated 31.10.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge, Gujranwala, whereby the suit filed by the petitioners was partially decreed. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit on 28.07.2003, wherein they challenged the mutation No. 299 sanctioned on 27.06.1995 of inheritance of Soba Khan s/o Boota, mentioned in Para 3 of the plaint the complete pedigree table of said Soba Khan and pleading therein that in mutation of inheritance petitioners have been ignored and the property was distributed between defendants No. 1 to 5. In the suit they have also challenged the mutation of exchange No. 302 attested on 27.08.1995 and mutation No. 368 dated 22.12.1999 to the extent of share of plaintiffs. 3. The defendant No. 1 opted not to appear before the court. The defendants No. 2 to filed consenting written statement, whereas defendants No. 3 and 7 to 9 filed their separate written statements and contested the suit. Learned trial court framed issues and invited the parties to produce their respective evidence. Both the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. After the close of trial, learned trial court vide judgment & decree dated 31.10.2009 partially decreed the…
🔒
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