| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2006 SLG 2621 2006 SLD 2621 2006 SCMR 1064 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petitions Nos. 1777 and 1948-L of 2002, decision dated: 19-02-2003 (On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 28-3-2002 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revisions Nos.1478 and 1845 of 2000)
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY AND FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Petitions Nos. 1777 and 1948-L of 2002, decision dated: 19-02-2003 (On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 28-3-2002 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revisions Nos.1478 and 1845 of 2000)
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY AND FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
UMAR HAYAT and another
VS
MADHU LAL HUSSAIN and others
Law:
Section:
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------S. 42---West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S.42---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Mutation, sanction of---Concurrent findings of fact by Courts below---Plaintiff asserted that disputed mutation was a result of fraud---Lambardar admitted in affidavit that he had not identified the owner at the time of attestation of disputed' mutation---Judgment and decree passed by Appellate Court in favour of plaintiff was maintained by High Court---Validity---Signatures of the owner of land were obtained on the disputed mutation as well as Roznamcha Waqyati contrary to the provisions of S.42 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, therefore, no reliance could be placed on the same---Question of fact had been set at naught by High Court after taking into consideration the material available on record---No case was made out for interference by Supreme Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Art.185(3) of the Constitution, in the passed by High Court---Leave to appeal was refused.Chaudhry Riyasat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No.1777-L of 2002).Ali Akbar Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmood-ul-Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No.1948-L/2002).Nemo for Respondents (in both cases). Date of hearing: 19th February, 2003. ORDER IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- These petitions have been filed against the judgment, dated 28-3-2002 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby Civil Revisions Nos.1478 of 2000 and 1845 of 2000 respectively have been dismissed. As identical questions of facts and law have been decided by the High Court by means of impugned judgment, which has been assailed in both the petitions, therefore, we intend to dispose of the same by this single order. (2). Precisely stating the facts of the case are that on 4th February, 1992 the petitioner Madhu Lal Hussain in C.P.L.A. No.1948-L of 2002 instituted a suit for declaration on the averments that his deceased wife namely Mst. Ghulam Bibi was the owner of 91 Kanals and 8 Marlas of suit-land description whereof has been given in the plaint. It is the case .of the…
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