Case Details

Citation(s)
2004 SLG 1269 2004 SLD 1269 2004 SCMR 1696
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos.1563 and 1564 of 1998, decision dated: 18-12-2003.(On appeal from the judgment, dated 16-6-1997 and 31-10-1997 of the High Court of Balochistan Quetta passed in Civil Revision No.273 of 1996 and Civil Revision No. 147 of 1995)
MUNIR A. SHEIKH AND RANA BHAGWANDAS, JJ
Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Tariq Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents

ABDUL HANAN alias ABDUL MANAN

VS

Haji MUHAMMAD AKRAM PERACHA and others

Law:

Section:

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---S. 42---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Declaration of title---Evacuee property---Common passage---Settlement authorities allotted the evacuee property to different persons having a common passage-Land of the passage was not transferred to any person and the same remained un disposed of to be used as such---Suit filed by respondents was dismissed by the Trial Court and and decree passed by, the Trial Court was maintained by Appellate Court---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside the s and decrees passed by the two Courts below and decreed the suit---Validity---Matter was earlier decided by Board of Revenue declaring the passage as common among the allottees of the different portions of the property- Finding of Board of Revenue was upheld by Supreme Court---Present was not a case in which the question of easement right over the passage of any of the parties was involved or could be claimed---Property-, in question was owned by one evacuee owner and having found the same to be divisible, the Settlement authorities by carving out different portion, transferred the property to different persons which had a passage with gate towards main road---Passage was left un-disposed of to be used as such, therefore, none of the parties could claim exclusive use of the same to the exclusion of the other---Plaintiffs could not be restrained from opening their windows and doors towards the passage---Suit was wrongly dismissed by the Trial Court as ,the claim made by the defendant amounted to indirectly claiming ownership of the passage as part of portion transferred to him---Judgment arid decree passed by High Court did not warrant any interference by Supreme Court---Appeal was dismissed. JUDGMENT MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---By this common judgment, we propose-to decide both these appeals involving identical questions of Jaw and facts. 2. Civil Appeal No. 1563 of 1998 by leave of the Court has arisen from a suit filed by the respondents iii which the following prayers were made:-- "(a) That the plaintiffs being inhabitants of the area are competent/ entitled in law to use the courtyard of the Ahata known as Nathu…
🔒
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