| Case ID |
259a5aaf-b4af-4c53-ade2-add5fc4076a3 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Revision Side No. 164 of 1958-59 |
| Decision Date |
Sep 15, 1959 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The decision emphasizes that the petitioner sought an adjournment to allow his counsel to address specific legal points. The request was granted with a cost payment of Rs. 150 to the respondent. The case facts, as stated by the learned Commissioner, do not need detailed repetition. Arguments presented highlighted a compromise dated January 7, 1947, which was part of the decree, stipulating the respondent's entitlement to property as per an earlier agreement from December 9, 1946. However, the counsel's arguments did not conclusively prove that the respondent renounced claims to other properties outside the stipulated agreement. Consequently, the petitioner's claim for revision of Mutation No. 4401 to have property mutated in his name as per Mutation No. 4703 lacked merit and was not suitable for resolution in summary proceedings. The order of the Additional Commissioner was thus upheld. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around a revision application concerning property rights based on earlier agreements. The petitioner sought a mutation of property rights based on a claimed compromise, which was contested by the respondent. The case highlights the importance of explicit renouncement in property claims and the limitations of summary proceedings in addressing complex property disputes. The decision underscores the need for clarity in legal agreements and the necessity for thorough argumentation in property-related cases. Legal practitioners involved included Said Gul, Kamal Mustafa, and Shamim Hussain Qadri, representing the petitioner and respondent respectively. The ruling reinforces the principles of property law and the procedural intricacies involved in mutation cases. This case serves as a pivotal reference for similar future disputes, emphasizing the significance of well-defined contractual terms and the consequences of ambiguous claims. |
| Court |
District D. I. Khan
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
M. Z. Khan
|
| Lawyers |
Said Gul,
Kamal Mustafa,
Shamim Hussain Qadri
|
| Petitioners |
Habib Khan
|
| Respondents |
Mst. Zangai
|
| Citations |
1960 SLD 344,
1960 PLD 50
|
| Other Citations |
Not available
|
| Laws Involved |
Not available
|
| Sections |
Not available
|