Case Details

Citation(s)
1954 SLG 33 1954 SLD 33 1954 PLD 606
Lahore High Court
Regular First Appeal No. 42 of 1952, decided on 25th May, 1954, from the decree of the Court of Khan Salah-ud-Din Hanif, Senior Civil Judge, Multan, dated the 11th March, 1952
B. Z. KAIKAUS AND AKHLAQUE HUSAIN, JJ
A. D. Kidwai and Mazhar-ul-Haq, for Appellant. Abdur Rahim, for
Respondent

SYED SHAH

VS

KHUDA BAKHSH known as MAULVI SHAH and others

Law: Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887

Section: 158(2)(xvii),118(1)

(a) Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887), S. 158,(2) (xvii)-Partition proceedings-Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain suit based on allegations of want of notice at certain material times to plaintiff and of collusion amounting to fraud between revenue officers and defendants. The plaintiff's substantial allegation and grievance was that the partition proceedings were null and void for want of notice to him at certain material times and on account of collusion, amounting to fraud, between the revenue officers concerned and the respondents. Held, that the suit was not barred. The allegations of the plaintiff if true would render the entire partition proceedings a nullity. Proceedings held in contravention of elementary principles of natural justice or of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure are no proceedings at all in the eye of law and the Civil Courts have jurisdiction to examine them. It is an elementary principle of law that fraud vitiates the most solemn acts whether they are of individuals or of Courts. Smith v. Queen, L R (1878) 3 A C 614, Secretary of State v. Mask & Co., A I R 1940 P C 105 and Muhammad Din v. Imam Din, PLD 1947 PC 317: AIR 1947 PC 33 ref. There is nothing in the language of section 118 (1) of the Land Revenue Act to show that an enquiry which has been carried on at the back of one party, or is vitiated by fraud, can be treated as an "enquiry" within the meaning of that section. JUDGMENT AKHLAQUE HUSAIN, J.-The plaintiff-appellant came to Court on the allegations that he and his three brothers, the defendant-respondents Nos. 5 to 7, were owners of one fourth share in the property in dispute; the defendant respondents Nos. 1 to 4 owned another one-fourth share and the remaining half belonged to defendants Nos. 5 to 7. In the beginning of 1950 the defendant No. 1 applied for partition of the property. The matter was referred for investigation to the Naib Tahsildar. Lodhram, who appointed arbitrators under section 127 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. When the award was received it was forwarded by the Naib Tahsildar along with his report to E. A. C. O. who on the 20th of Decem­ber 1950 accepted the mode of partition…
🔒
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