| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1996 SLG 1568 1996 SLD 1568 1996 CLC 2016 |
Lahore High Court
Regular Second Appeal No. 65 of 1966, decision dated:11-06-1996
CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD KHAN, J
Dr. A. Basit for Appellant. Muhammad Rashid Chughtai and Ch. Attaullah for
Respondents
Regular Second Appeal No. 65 of 1966, decision dated:11-06-1996
CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD KHAN, J
Dr. A. Basit for Appellant. Muhammad Rashid Chughtai and Ch. Attaullah for
Respondents
JEEWAN BAKHSH and others
VS
FAZAL AHMAD and 52 others
Law:
Section:
(a) Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887)-------S. 113---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 0.1, R.3 & S. 100---Partition of agricultural land by Revenue Court---Necessary parties ---Non-impleading of those persons who had purchased part of land in question, during partition proceedings---Effect---Application seeking partition was filed on 21-3-1956; mode of partition was settled vide order dated 10-8-1957 and order of partition was passed on 25-1-1958---Appellants objecting to partition, had purchased land out of joint Khata vide sale-deed dated 1-9-1956, mutation whereof was sanctioned on 4-6-1957, therefore, they were not recorded owners on the date on which partition proceedings had been initiated and notice had been issued to recorded co-owners of joint Khata---Appellants having purchased land during partition proceedings, no defect in terms of S.113, Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, could be found with partition proceedings on account of their nonimpleading for their predecessor-in-interest had been admittedly impleaded as party thereto, who had contested partition proceedings and had been heard--Finding rendered by First Appellate Court on that count being unexceptionable was maintained in circumstances. Allah Rakha and another v. Muhammad Yusuf and others PLD 1991 SC. 601; Abdullah and another v. Mian Tafazzul Hussain and another PLD 1961 BJ 58 and Wali and 2 others v. Manak Ali and 2 others PLD 1965 SC 651 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XXII, R. 6---Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887), S. 113---Suit against partition of agricultural land by Revenue Court---Necessary parties died before ultimate hearing in suit was concluded---Legal representatives of deceased persons were not impleaded within limitation prescribed by law---Suit thus, stood abated in toto and not only to the extent of share of deceased defendants--Partial abatement would take place only if two decrees were not inconsistent and could independently stand---If suits against remaining defendants were decreed it would only be possible if order of partition as a whole was set aside for each cosharer 4had right to get partition of every inch of joint property,…
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