| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1987 SLG 604 1987 SLD 604 1987 SCMR 1591 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 9Q of 1984, decided on 21st April, 1987. (On appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan, dated 4101983, in Civil Revision 36 of 1982).
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH. S. A. NUSRAT AND ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, JJ
Muhammad Aslam Chishti, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Khalid Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and S.A.M. Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents Nos. 1 to 6.
Respondent No. 7 in person
Civil Appeal No. 9Q of 1984, decided on 21st April, 1987. (On appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan, dated 4101983, in Civil Revision 36 of 1982).
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH. S. A. NUSRAT AND ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, JJ
Muhammad Aslam Chishti, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Khalid Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and S.A.M. Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents Nos. 1 to 6.
Respondent No. 7 in person
AMIR MUHAMMAD
VS
NAIK MUHAMMAD and others
Law:
Section:
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-----Art. 185(3)--Leave to appeal granted to examine the question of law whether a suit for ejectment from immovable property by one co-owner against the other co-owners in respect of an undivided share was competent in law and whether High Court, in holding that the appellant was not in possession of suit land, set up a case for plaintiffs contrary to the pleas taken in plaint. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-- ---Art. 185--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXI, R. 35(2)-Decree for joint possession--Plaint in suit showing that the plaintiffs had prayed that the possession may be taken from the appellant and delivered to them which clearly meant a decree for eviction--Counsel for plaintiffs unable to support the proposition that a decree for eviction could be validly passed in respect of undivided share against a co-sharer--Such a decree would not be executable in the mode prescribed by 0. XXI, R. 35(2), C.P.C.--Civil Court could, irrespective of specific relief claimed, grant any other relief which the circumstances of the case justified--Although plaintiffs claimed a decree for ejectment by dispossession of the appellant, Supreme Court, held, could modify the same and grant a decree for joint possession-Decree modified and converted into a decree for joint possession in favour of plaintiffs in respect of subject-matter of suit to the extent of their shares. Bishesar Singh v. Hanuman Singh AIR 1922 All. 31.4; Hanuman Parsad Narain Singh v. Mathura Parsad Narain Singh AIR 1928 All. 472; Hayat and others v. Muhammad Sadiq and others PLD 1956 Lah. 195 and Mehr and others v. Mst. Sahib Jan PLD 1973 Lah. 455 not applicable. JUDGMENT ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.--Leave to appeal was granted in this case to examine the question of law whether the suit from which this appeal arises, being a suit for ejectment from immovable property by orte co-owner against the other co-owners in respect of an undivided share is competent in law. The aforesaid suit was filed by respondents No. 1 to 6 (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) in 1974, against respondent No. 1 and the appellant herein, for declaration and possession of the suit…
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