Law: West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967

Section: XVII,53,135,172

Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

Section: 42

Law: Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Section: XLI,25

West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)-------Ss.53, 135 & 172---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLI, R. 25---Partition of landed property---Jurisdiction of Civil Court---Scope---Resolution of complicated question of facts regarding a joint property---Rights of vendee and share-holders in a joint khata in column of cultivation---Determination---Competency of a vendee of column of cultivation to participate in partition proceedings---Scope---Culmination of partition proceedings in favour of petitioners being owners in joint khata and issuance of warrants of actual possession---Respondent/vendee claimed to be owner in possession of land in dispute on the basis of mutations attested in her favour on the basis of decrees of Court---Validity---Purchaserin column of cultivation is not competent to file a suit for partition as it is in respect of the partition of the property amongst the coowners i.e., the set of owners from a particular Khata, and vendee of column of cultivation step into the shoes of his vendor---Respondent had already approached the civil court for determination of her right---Total entitlement of respondent on the strength of mutations attested in her favour through judgment and decree, and the property, which was devolved upon her from her father, being subject to the ownership of their vendors were questions requiring resolution---A person cannot transfer a better title than he owns as envisaged in the Latin maxim 'Nemo dat quod non-habet' (no one can give what they do not have)---Total entitlement of the vendor shall be the shares alienated through mutations---Mutationsin favour of respondent in isolation with the rest of the factors might not be made basis for rectification of the entries in revenue papers unless the status of the vendor/vendors was determined---There was no evidence regarding the total ownership of the vendor of respondent and her predecessor-in-interest for resolution of her entitlement, thus, High Court was left with no other option but to have resort to the provisions of O.XLI R. 25 of C.P.C. for proper determination from Trial Court--Since intricate question of law and…