| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1986 SLG 938 1986 SLD 938 1986 SCMR 1561 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 127 of 1980, decision dated: 24-06-1986. (On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 30-10-1974 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 455 of 1966)
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J., MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH AND SHAFIUR RAHMAN, JJ
Mian Saeedur Rahman Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Salah-ud-Din, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellants. Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar, Advocate, Supreme Court with S. Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record (absent).
Civil Appeal No. 127 of 1980, decision dated: 24-06-1986. (On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 30-10-1974 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 455 of 1966)
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J., MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH AND SHAFIUR RAHMAN, JJ
Mian Saeedur Rahman Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Salah-ud-Din, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellants. Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar, Advocate, Supreme Court with S. Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record (absent).
REHMATULLAH and others
VS
Mst. HAMEEDA BEGUM and others
Law:
Section:
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)----Art. 185(3)--Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Ss. 10 & 11--Leave to appeal granted to examine implications of allotment of property in the name of firm and whether partners therein would be benefited by such allotment. (b) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)-----Ss. 10 & 11--Transfer of property--Shop in dispute, which was originally allotted in 1948 to a firm through respondent, later on, when Settlement operation started, was divided in two equal parts, one whereof was transferred by Deputy Settlement Commissioner to appellants, who had by then become partners of firm in possession of property, and other to respondent--Settlement Commissioner on revision from both parties dismissing revision of petitioner on basis of crucial date i.e. 20-12-1958 and holding that allotment and consequential possession in law on account of allotment orders was that of respondent--On a second revision before Chief Settlement Commissioner, appellants, being partners of firm, were also treated as allottees in possession on crucial date-Property was divided into three parts and one portion was transferred each to two appellants and third to respondent--Nothing was available to show that there was any special provision in partnership deed giving preference to respondents in matter of allotment of shop nor any such covenant was declared from respondents side---Held, appellants were not only partners of firm on crucial date but also in that capacity, they were allottees in possession of shop in dispute along with respondents--All three contestants for transfer of shop were equally entitled to a share in shop in so far as its transfer under Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act was concerned--Allotment and possession not being of defined portions, it was joint and their entitlement was also for a joint transfer--Order of Chief Settlement Commissioner ; who treated appellants partners of firm and allottees in possession en crucial date, even if without jurisdiction, on account of admission of a second revision, had achieved ends of justice and…
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