| Case ID |
09c095f0-4c3c-4d41-94d7-62e6276d53e0 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Revision Application No. S-88 of 2002 |
| Decision Date |
Oct 05, 2020 |
| Hearing Date |
Aug 31, 2020 |
| Decision |
The Sindh High Court dismissed the revision application, determining that the civil court had wrongly assumed jurisdiction over the suit. The court emphasized that even if parties agreed to a private partition of their joint agricultural land, the remedy for partition lay with the Revenue Officer under the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967. The plaintiff had not demonstrated that jurisdiction was properly invoked, nor had he made an application to the Revenue Officer for an order affirming the private partition. The appellate court's dismissal was upheld as the agreement was primarily a private partition and thus outside the civil court's jurisdiction, leading to the conclusion that the civil court's involvement was not warranted. |
| Summary |
In the case of SYED SHAHAN SHAH ALIAS SYED NASRULLAH SHAH THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS vs. SYED AMANULLAH SHAH AND 17 OTHERS, the Sindh High Court addressed critical issues regarding jurisdiction under the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967. The case revolved around the enforcement of an agreement for the exchange of agricultural land. The trial court initially decreed in favor of the plaintiff, citing the agreement as enforceable at law. However, on appeal, the lower appellate court dismissed the suit, citing that the agreement involved government-acquired land, thus rendering it unenforceable. The High Court upheld this dismissal, clarifying that the civil court lacked jurisdiction as the matter fell under the purview of the Revenue Officer. This case highlights the importance of understanding the jurisdictional boundaries set by specific laws in property disputes, particularly in agricultural land cases. Legal practitioners should note the significance of filing appropriate applications with the Revenue Officer when dealing with matters of land partition or exchange, and the necessity of adhering to procedural requirements to ensure that the civil courts do not overstep their jurisdiction. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
ADNAN IQBAL CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE
|
| Lawyers |
Kalander Bakhsh M. Phulpoto for Applicant.,
Nemo. for Respondents Nos.1 to 14.,
Ahmed Ali Shahani, Assistant Advocate General Sindh for Respondents Nos.15 to 18.
|
| Petitioners |
SYED SHAHAN SHAH ALIAS SYED NASRULLAH SHAH THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS
|
| Respondents |
SYED AMANULLAH SHAH AND 17 OTHERS
|
| Citations |
2021 SLD 866,
2021 MLD 531
|
| Other Citations |
Not available
|
| Laws Involved |
Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967
|
| Sections |
141,
172
|