Case Details

Citation(s)
2001 SLG 1308 2001 SLD 1308 2001 SCMR 223
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeals Nos. 133 to 136 of 1996, heard on 19-05-2000
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH AND HAMID ALI MIRZA, JJ
K.M.A. Samdani, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in Cr.As. Nos. 133 and 134 of 1996). Ch. Iftikhar Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant (in Cr.A. No. 135 of 1996) Javed Aziz Sindhu, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant (in Cr.A. No. 1

MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others

VS

THE STATE and others

Law:

Section:

ORDER IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J. ----Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Balochistan dated 1-3-1999 whereby civil revision petitions filed by the -Respondents were allowed as a result whereof order dated 31st October, 1997 passed by Civil Judge-I, Quetta allowing application under Order XXIII, Rule 1, C.P.C. has been set aside. -Petitioners (plaintiffs) are the sons of Sardar Muhammad Asim Fakhruddin Durrani (-Respondent No. l). Latter being the owner of the property detailed in the plaint (hereinafter referred to as the "suit property") situated in Quetta transferred some of the units in favour of -Respondents No.2 to 5 by executing sale-deeds and also entered into sale agreements with the remaining -Respondents. -Petitioners sought cancellation of sale-deeds and sale agreements by instituting Civil Suit No.69 of 1996 on 25th June, 1996 in the Court of Civil Judge-I, Quetta chiefly on the averments that the suit property was originally owned by their grandfather Sardar Muhammad Essa Khan and after his death in the year 1979 it devolved upon the -Respondent No. 1. It was mentioned in the plaint that affairs of the property were being managed by their mother Mrs. Hussain Taj during the lifetime of their grand-father because she was being trusted by him and in this manner she remained beneficiary of the property. However, after the death of their mother the -Petitioners are looking after the affairs of the ancestral property because -Respondent No. l was not keeping sound mental health and on consultation with Doctors they were informed that he had developed senility. During this process -Petitioners learnt that -Respondent No. l had sold 5 shops out of the suit property to -Respondents Nos.2 to 5 at a very low rate whereas she has also executed sale agreements with the remaining -Respondents to dispose of all the suit properties. Thus, in the following terms decree was prayed for:----- "(i) Declaring that the plaintiffs having beneficial interest in the properties referred to in para.1 of the plaint are entitled to protect the same and the defendant No.1 has no authority to dispose of the same in any manner whatsoever,…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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