Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

Section: 42, 54

Law: Cooperative Societies Act, 1925

Section: 27

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------Ss. 42 & 54---Cooperative Societies Act (VII of 1925), S.27---Suit for declaration and injunction---Death of member---Transfer of interest---Nominee of member---Status---Petitioners/defendants claimed to be nominees of deceased member of cooperative society, whereas respondents/plaintiffs were among the legal heirs of deceased member---Suit filed by respondents/plaintiffs was dismissed by Trial Court but Lower Appellate Court and High Court decreed the same in their favour---Validity---In presence of heirs of deceased member, the nominee and after his death petitioner/defendant could not succeed him, rather the share and interest of deceased established in the Society would devolve upon his legal heirs---Petitioner/defendant could not claim allotment on the basis of membership in society accorded prior to his birth---Some fraud was played by petitioner/defendant in order to deprive legal heirs of deceased member from their valuable rights accrued in their favour---Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.Mst. Amtul Habib and others v. Mst. Musarrat Parveen and others 1974 SCMR 185; Fazal Shah v. Muhammad Din and others 1990 SCMR 868; Manzoor Ahmad v. Mst. Salman Bibi and others 1998 SCMR 388 and Muhammad Bakhsh v. Mst. Ghulam Ghulam Fatima 2007 SCMR 1227 rel.ORDER:SHAHID BILAL HASSAN, JUSTICE:---.--- Malcontented with the judgment dated 05.04.2016 passed in Revision Petition bearing No.29-D of 2001 by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, the petitioners have filed the instant petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.2. Tersely, the respondents instituted a suit for declaration by maintaining that they were in possession of the suit land as successors-in-interest of Hameed Khan (deceased) and petitioner No.1 was merely his nominee, therefore, the sale deed dated 16.12.1991 and the orders dated 19.12.1991, 09.09.1991 and mutation No.255 dated 31.12.1991 were against law, facts and ineffective upon their rights; that the suit land was originally…