Case Details

Citation(s)
1982 SLG 494 1982 SLD 494 1982 SCMR 843
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 286 of 1979, decision dated: 17th November 1.979. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 3-2-1979, in C. R. No.127/79)
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN AND KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, JJ
Syed Manzoor Hussars Bokhari, Advocate, Supreme Court and Syed Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents.

GULZAR KHAN

VS

Mst. RAZIA BEGUM AND 2 OTHERS

Law:

Section:

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---S. 115-Revision-Concurrent findings on question of fact by trial Court and appellate Court-Held, could not be interfered with by High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless error of jurisdiction found. ORDER KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-This is a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 3-2-1979, whereby a civil revision application No. 127/79 which had been filed for challenging the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, dated 26-10-1979, was dismissed. 2. The facts of the case are few and simple Mst. Razia Begum and others (hereinafter called the plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of one half share of a common courtyard of the houses bearing Nos. 210 and 210-A, situated at Chuhar Harpal, Tehsil and District Rawalpindi. The suit was contested and on the pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed the necessary issues, which so far as relevant, are reproduced below :-- (1) Whether the disputed site is joint property of the plaintiffs and the defendants ? (2) If issue No. 1 is proved, what is the share of the plaintiffs in the disputed land ? (3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get this land partitioned ? (4) ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.. (5) Whether the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs has already sold his share in the suit property ? (6) ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.. (7) ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.. (8) ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.. It may be mentioned that the present petitioner who was the sole defendant in the case had also filed a cross-suit claiming a declaration that he was the sole owner of the suit property which included houses and courtyard, etc. The learned trial judge on the pleadings of the petitioner framed an issue being issue No. 7, which read as "whether the defendant is entitled to a decree for declaration and injunction prayed for in the other suit 7" On issue No. 1 it was held that admittedly the houses Nos. 210 and 210-A have been con­structed upon the land which originally belonged to one Alawal who was the common ancestor of the parties and devolved upon the parties in equal shares. Taking the…
🔒
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