| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1992 SLG 723 1992 SLD 723 1992 CLC 777 |
Sindh High Court
Judicial Miscellaneous No. 2 of 1990 in Suit No. 329 of 1988, decided on 10th September, 1991
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, J
Zahid Hussain Burhani for Plaintiffs and Hisam-ud-Din for Applicants. Nemo for Defendants
Judicial Miscellaneous No. 2 of 1990 in Suit No. 329 of 1988, decided on 10th September, 1991
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, J
Zahid Hussain Burhani for Plaintiffs and Hisam-ud-Din for Applicants. Nemo for Defendants
ABDUL AZIZ KHAN NIAZI and others
VS
Mrs. SALMA REHMAN and anothers
Law:
Section:
(a) Abandoned Properties (Taking-over and Management) Act (XX of 1975)--- ---S.11---Abandoned property---Declaration of---Only that property could be declared as an abandoned property which was owned by a specified person--Any property validly acquired from a specified person before specified date viz. 16-12-1971, could not be subjected to provisions of the Act. Mohammad Rafiullah v. The Board of Trustees for Abandoned Properties and another 1987 M L D 558; Maudood Ahmed Farooqui v. Amina Fabrics and 2 others PLD 1983 Kar. 176 and Marium and 5 others v. Haji Ali and 3 others PLD 1985 Kar. 705 ref. (b) Abandoned Properties (Taking-over and Management) Act (XX of 1975)--- ----S. 23---Bar of jurisdiction of Court as also other questions arising under provisions of Act XX of 1975---Consideration of---Property in question had been declared abandoned property under the provisions of Act XX of 1975, but plaintiff suppressed such fact and with the collusion of attorney to the defendant to whom such property had been allottee, obtained consent decree in respect said property---Questions whether defendant was a specified person; whether she had executed the General Power of Attorney; whether plaintiff had acquired any right by virtue of agreement in question; and whether the Notification dated 3-3-1976, declaring such property to be abandoned property had been issued validly, would have been open to consideration only, if plaintiff had come to the Court with clean hands, disclosed the fact of said Notification and raised the question of its validity in plaint; had he done so then applicants now seeking reversal of consent decree would have been joined as parties to the suit and consequently all the said questions would have arisen for consideration of Court including the issue whether the suit was barred under S.23 of Act XX of 1975---Fraud being apparent on the face of the record and proceedings of suit, decree in question was liable to be set aside. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-- ----S.12 (2)---Plaintiff obtaining decree of property in question, by suppression of material facts---Had plaintiff brought all the material facts before Court, applicants seeking…
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