Case Details

Citation(s)
1996 SLD 768 = 1996 CLC 1403
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 1203 of 1976, decided on 18th March, 1996
Presented By: Before lhsan-ul-Haq Chaudhry, J
Sardar Tariq Sher Khan. for Petitioner. H4bib-ur-Rehman Ansari and M. Ramzan Qureshi for
Respondent No.2 M. Khalid Alvi for
Respondents Nos. 3 to 5

BAKHT ALI and others---Petitioners

VERSUS

Mst. SHARMAN and others- --Respondents

Law: Muhammadan Law

Section:

(a) Muhammadan Law--- ----Inheritance---Sale of land by one heir before attestation of mutation of inheritance---Validity---Inheritance under Muhammadan Law opens immediately on the death of last owner---Attestation of mutation and entries in other official record were mere formalities---Heir of deceased (vendor) thus; became owner as son of deceased immediately after the death of his father, therefore, date of attestation of mutation was immaterial for sale of land to be effective-- Judgments of Trial Court and that of Appellate Court decreeing plaintiff's suit to the extent of their shares and setting aside sale on behalf of the male heir (son) was modified to the extent that plaintiffs' decree to the extent of their shares was maintained while sale over and above of defendants' share was set aside while to the extent of defendant's share was maintained in circumstances. Syed Abdul Jalil Shah v. Government of Punjab 1981 Law Notes (SC) 688 and Allah Bux v. Shirimati Assudi Bai NLR 1985 VC 542 ref. (b). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XLI, Rr. 4, 33 & S. 115---Mutation of sale by one heir (defendant) in favour of defendants (vendees)---Two Courts below decreed plaintiff's suit to the extent of their shares and set aside sale transaction in favour of defendants---One set of defendant did not  appeal  against  such  judgment  while  the  other  defendants appealed---Effect---Provision of O.XLI, R. 4, C.P.C. would apply where decree appealed from proceeds upon ground common to all the plaintiffs and defendants, while R. 33 of O.XLI, C.P.C. was wider in scope and applied even where decree did not proceed on any ground common to all persons against whom same was passed---Such power was also available in revision---Both sets of defendants had purchased land in question through one mutation and if that mutation was maintained as valid same would be valid for all the vendees---One set of defendants in spite of having not appealed against decree of Appellate Court would take benefit of decision in favour of other set of defendants.   Hamidan Bibi v. Sheikh Darog Ali and others PLD 1964 Dacca…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register