Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 39,42

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 100,103,O.XLI,R.27

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 39---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLI, R. 27---Suit for declaration---Maintainability---Co-sharer---Family partition---Sale of joint property without partition---Scope---Document not produced by the parties before the Court, consideration of---Requirements---Contention of plaintiff was that suit land was in his ownership and possession on the basis of family partition and defendant had sold excess land from his share without having possession and entitlement---Suit was dismissed by the Trial Court which was upheld by the Appellate Court but High Court decreed the same and sale deed was cancelled---Validity---Neither family partition nor possession on the suit land had been proved by the plaintiff---When plaintiff was out of the possession, he should have sought relief of possession---Present suit under S. 42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 was not maintainable in circumstances---Findings recorded by the Trial Court had rightly been maintained by the Appellate Court---High Court was not justified in calculating the share of plaintiff only from one Khewat while leaving the other Khewat---Whole holding in the village comprising of different Khewats while calculating share of plaintiff was liable to be taken into consideration---Co-sharer in possession of a specific field number could validly transfer suit land even though his share in such specific field number had exceeded his share provided it did not exceed his overall share in the total land---Revenue staff could not go beyond the decree and was bound to give effect to it unless same was set aside or varied by the competent Court---Document not brought on record of the Court in accordance with procedure could not be considered or accepted by the Court---Proper procedure for the party would be to apply for bringing the said document on record as an additional evidence---Impugned and decree passed by the High Court were set aside and those of Courts below were restored---Appeal was allowed in circumstances. Atta Muhammad v. Sahibzada Manzoor Ahmad 1992 SCMR 138; Town Committee, Jalalpur Pirwala through Chairman v. Malik Mehr Bakhsh and another 2007 YLR…

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