Case Details

Citation(s)
2019 SLG 3067 2019 SLD 3067 2019 YLR 2679
Peshawar High Court
Civil Revision No. 42-M of 2019, decision & hearing Dated: 13-02-2019.
SYED ARSHAD ALI, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Abdul Halim Khan
Respondent(s) by: Nemo

BAKHT ROIDAR

VS

BAKHT BAIDAR AND OTHERS

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 8,9

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 8---Suit for possession of immovable property against co-owner---Maintainability---No official partition of property in question had taken place---Suit for possession against joint owner was not maintainable---Only remedy available to the co-owner was to file a suit for partition of the entire joint property. Mst. Resham Bibi and others v. Lal Din and others 1999 SCMR 2325; Muhammad Shafi and 2 others v. Munshi and 3 others 1979 CLC 230 and Zulfiqar and others v. Noor Muhammad and others 2002 CLC 711 rel. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: SYED ARSHAD ALI J.--- Through the instant revision petition, the petitioner has called into question the judgment/order of the learned Additional District Judge/Izafi Zila Qazi Chakdara Dir Lower dated 19.11.2018 passed in Civil Appeal No. 24/14 (XIV) of 2018, whereby the appeal filed by the present defendants/respondents against the order of trial Court dated 25.9.2018 was accepted by partially modifying the order of the trial Court. 2. Essential facts of the case are that the present plaintiff had filed a suit before the civil Court at Chakdara for declaration to the effect that the disputed property which is described in the plaint annexed with the plaint as mark "E" is privately partitioned among the parties and thus the defendants had no right to refute the ownership of the plaintiff over the land which is mark "D" and thus any construction on the said portion of land is without lawful authority. He has also prayed for possession of the suit property. In the said suit, a right of passage was also claimed and the said passage has been duly reflected with the appended annexures in the plaint starting from point A(1) to D(1). 3. The suit was contested by the defendants in their written statement. In the said written statement the defendants had denied the averments in the plaint. 4. During the proceedings, the plaintiff had also filed an application for restraining the defendants Nos. 2 to 11 from obstructing the passage/thoroughfare which they have shown in the annexures to the plaint. On the said application, the learned trial Court had granted ad-interim injunction and appointed 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