| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1996 SLD 818 = 1996 CLC 1782 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No.492 of 1996, decided on 25th April, 1996
Presented By: Before Ch. Muhammad Nasim, J
Sh. Shahid Mahmood for Petitioners.
Civil Revision No.492 of 1996, decided on 25th April, 1996
Presented By: Before Ch. Muhammad Nasim, J
Sh. Shahid Mahmood for Petitioners.
BASHIR AHMAD and another---Petitioners
VERSUS
Mst. RAMZANAN MAI and another---Respondents
Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)
Section: 42
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 42---West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S. 42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.l, 2 & S. 115---Suit for declaration on basis of Tamleeknama'---Plaintiffs being sons of deceased claimed that their father during his lifetime had made declaration to the factum of ' Tamleeknama' to the exclusion of his daughters (defendants)---Plaintiffs claiming to be in possession of property filed application for grant of temporary injunction getting defendants restrained from interfering in their possession as well as alienating the same---Trial Court partly accepted application and restrained defendants from alienating property in question, during pendency of suit---To the extent of remaining relief, however, plaintiff's application was dismissed---Plaintiff's appeal did not bear fruit---Validity---Plaintiffs claimed that 'Tamleeknama' was executed in their favour but they did not take advantage of S. 42, West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 whereunder, any person, acquiring by inheritance, purchase, mortgage, gift or otherwise, any right in any estate as a landowner was to report to Patwari within three months of such acquisition, who was to record such report in his Roznamcha and furnish a copy of the record to the person making such report---Plaintiffs in spite of ' Tamleeknama' in their possession failed to report their acquisition of interest to Patwari---Due to non compliance of provision of S. 42, West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 by plaintiffs' presumption would be that they had no prima facie case; that balance of convenience was not in their favour; and that in case of dismissal of their application they would not suffer irreparable loss---Courts below had, thus, rightly dismissed plaintiff's application for grant of temporary injunction to the extent of proposed relief of maintenance of status quo as to possession in their favour---Concurrent finding of Courts below was affirmed in circumstances. Sh. Shahid Mahmood for Petitioners. ORDER One Sohna alias Sohnay Khan was the owner of 125 Kanals,…