| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 1949 2020 SLD 1949 2020 YLR 1437 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 525 of 2009, decision Dated: 12-11-2019, hearing Date : 04-11-2019
ATIR MAHMOOD, JUSTICE
Ch. Imran Hassan Ali for Petitioners. Muhammad Ilyas Sheikh for
Respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Barrister Talha Ilyas Sheikh, Ch. Mazhar Hussain Minhas, Taimoor Malik and Mst. Farhat Majeed Chaudhry for L.Rs. of
Respondent No. 4.
Civil Revision No. 525 of 2009, decision Dated: 12-11-2019, hearing Date : 04-11-2019
ATIR MAHMOOD, JUSTICE
Ch. Imran Hassan Ali for Petitioners. Muhammad Ilyas Sheikh for
Respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Barrister Talha Ilyas Sheikh, Ch. Mazhar Hussain Minhas, Taimoor Malik and Mst. Farhat Majeed Chaudhry for L.Rs. of
Respondent No. 4.
RUSTAM ALI AND OTHERS
VS
GHULAM WARIS AND OTHERS
Law: Partition Act, 1893
Section: 2,3,4
Partition Act (IV of 1893)--- ----Ss. 4, 2 & 3---Suit for possession through partition---Preliminary decree---Sale of suit property---Word "request" in S.3, Partition Act, 1893---Scope---Trial Court passed final decree in the terms that subject to payment of share of defendants the plaintiffs would be owner of suit property---Validity---Court had jurisdiction to decide whether suit property was partitionable or not---If suit property was not divisible due to its nature and sale proceed was more beneficial, then Court might pass order for sale of suit property and distribution of sale proceeds amongst the shareholders---"Request" for sale of suit property might be written or verbal---Where preliminary decree had been passed then S.2 of Partition Act, 1893, was not applicable---Mere non-filing of written application for sale of suit property would not defeat the right of any of the parties to purchase the same---Possession of suit property was with the defendants who had 5/6 shares as compared to 1/6 of the plaintiffs in the suit land---Share of defendants was much bigger than that of plaintiffs in addition to the fact they had possession of suit property---Defendants were to be given opportunity to purchase the minor share of plaintiffs in the suit property, in circumstances---No illegality had been pointed out in the impugned s and decrees passed by the Courts below---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances. M/s Conforce Ltd. v. M/s Rafique Industries Ltd. PLD 1989 SC 136 and Sheikh Iftikhar Ahmed and another v. Dr. Muhammad Ilyas 2003 MLD 338 ref. Fiurdous Begum's case 2008 CLC 248; Badri Narain Prasad Chaoudhary and others v. Nil Ratan Sarkar AIR 1978 SC 845 and Kalyan Kumar Basak v. Salil Kumar Basak and others AIR 1989 Cal. 159 rel. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: ATIR MAHMOOD, JUSTICE:---.--- Brief facts of the case are that on 31.07.1991, respondent No. 1 Ghulam Waris filed a suit for declaration and in alternate, suit for possession through partition against the petitioners and others regarding property comprising godown measuring 92 sq. ft. and a shop fully described in headnote of the plaint (hereinafter referred to as "the suit properties") with 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