| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 5811 2024 SLD 5811 = 2024 CLC 1753 |
Islamabad High Court
Regular First Appeal No.479 of 2023, decided on 21st June, 2024.
Before Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, J
Zafar Kundi for Appellant. Kashif Ali Malik and Qaiser Abbas Gondal for
Respondents Nos.1 to 3. Rubina Saeed, Humaira S. Masihuddin and Sagheer Ahmed Bhatti for
Respondents Nos.4 and 5. Barrister Bilal Naseer and Ms. Meraj Tareen for
Respondent No.6/CDA.
Regular First Appeal No.479 of 2023, decided on 21st June, 2024.
Before Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, J
Zafar Kundi for Appellant. Kashif Ali Malik and Qaiser Abbas Gondal for
Respondents Nos.1 to 3. Rubina Saeed, Humaira S. Masihuddin and Sagheer Ahmed Bhatti for
Respondents Nos.4 and 5. Barrister Bilal Naseer and Ms. Meraj Tareen for
Respondent No.6/CDA.
Dr. FARAH SOHAIL----Appellant
VERSUS
Dr. FOUZIA HUMAYUN and others----Respondents
Law: Partition Act, 1893
Section: IV,4
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 35(1)(iii)
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: I,42,54
Partition Act (IV of 1893)-------S.4---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 35(1)(iii) [as amended by Costs of Litigation Act, 2017]---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54---Capital Development Authority Property Manual, Chapter-VI, Clause 9---Suit for declaration, injunction and partition of dwelling house---Joint property---Auction of shares---Appellant / defendant assailed preliminary decree passed by Trial Court on the plea that shares in suit property could not be auctioned---Validity---Jointly owned property can be transferred by one of the co-allottees under Clause 9 in Chapter-VI of Capital Development Authority Property Manual, to the extent of his share without consent of other co-allottees---Even if suit houses were considered as an indivisible whole, the transfer of shares of appellant and respondents was permissible and transfer of such shares was also permissible---There was no lawful impediment for transfer of shares through auction---Auction purchaser of shares of respondents in suit house, which was over 50% of suit property, was bound by private partition carried out and acted upon by predecessor-in-interest of parties--High Court imposed special costs upon appellant under S.35(1)(iii),C.P.C., as amended by Costs of Litigation Act, 2017, for his conduct, which was inequitable in denying possession of suit property to its co-owners who happened to be her real sisters and embroiling them in litigation---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.Ghulam Rasool v. Muhammad Khalid 2006 YLR 2289; Azhar Hussain Shah v. Member Board of Revenue, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 2016 YLR 1489 and Mazullah Khan v. Taraja Begum 2020 YLR 2206 distinguished.Dates of hearing: 2nd November, 2023 and 8th May, 2024.JUDGMENTMIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, J.----Through the instant regular first appeal the appellant, Dr. Farah Sohail, impugns the preliminary judgment and decree dated 08.05.2023 passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Islamabad, whereby the suit instituted on 26.06.2021 by the plaintiffs / respondents Nos.1 to 3 for "declaration, separate possession through partition, rendition of accounts, recovery of mesne profit, permanent and mandatory injunction"…