| Case ID |
2e240706-a081-455a-b450-9765726d05db |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 679 and 1940 |
| Decision Date |
Apr 18, 1993 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court ruled that all parties involved, both plaintiffs and defendants, are co-owners of the property in question and hence all are necessary parties in the suit for partition. The court emphasized that the object of the provisions in the Civil Procedure Code is to avoid multifariousness, and as such, all co-owners must be included in the suit to ensure that the partition is valid. The court also clarified that a suit for partition could not be barred by earlier suits that did not include all co-owners. It was further established that the plaintiffs were entitled to seek accounts from the defendants for the rental income generated from the property. Overall, the decision reinforced the principles of joint ownership and the necessity of including all stakeholders in legal proceedings related to property disputes. |
| Summary |
This case revolved around the partition of a jointly owned property and the legal complexities surrounding the necessary inclusion of all co-owners in such proceedings. The Sindh High Court addressed the legal principles under the Civil Procedure Code regarding the avoidance of multifariousness in suits, emphasizing that all parties must be present to adjudicate claims effectively. The case also touched upon the Limitation Act and the rights of co-owners to seek accounts for rental income from the property. By establishing the necessity of all co-owners being made parties to the suit, the court sought to ensure comprehensive resolution and prevent future disputes. The implications of this ruling highlight the importance of joint ownership rights in property law, making this a significant case for future reference in similar disputes. Keywords include 'joint ownership', 'partition of property', 'Civil Procedure Code', 'co-owners', and 'legal proceedings'. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
|
| Judges |
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHAKI, J
|
| Lawyers |
Mansoorul Arfin,
Khalid Jawed,
B.M. Bangash,
S.I.H. Zaidi,
Munirur Rahman
|
| Petitioners |
MOINUDDIN PARACHA and 5 others
|
| Respondents |
SIRAJUDDIN PARACHA and 22 others
|
| Citations |
1994 SLD 1165 = 1994 CLC 247
|
| Other Citations |
Anukul Chandran Chakrawarti v. Province of Bengal and others AIR 1947 Cal 374,
Kanhaiyalal v. Keshodas AIR 1961 Madh. Pra. 46,
Kamal Kant Gopalgi v. Madhavji AIR 1935 Bom. 343,
Rama Swami Mudalia and others v. Allagathi Ali AIR 1929 Mad 96,
Muhammad Azam v. Pakistan Employees' Cooperative Housing Society, Karachi and 4 others PLD 1985 Kar. 481,
M. K. Abbasi v. United Bank Ltd 1983 CLC 482,
Sarakhi Abdul Rahiman Taragan and another v: Mohaidin Pathammul Bivi and another 32 IC 83,
Abdus Samad Khan and others v. Moulvi Abdullah 1989 CLC 1563,
Shaikh Muhammad Anwar v. Sheikh Muhammad Iqbal and another 1984 CIA-- 103,
Mansoor E. Khan v. Sofia Mansoor Khan 1987 MLD 737,
Aftab Ahmad Mufti and others v. Mst. Seems alias Zarina 1988 CLC 1567,
Ghazala Zakir v. Muhammad Khursheer and 7 others PLD 1989 Kar. 350,
Basant Ram v. Dasondhimal and others AIR 1929 Lah. 497,
Maqbool Hussain v. Haji Muhammad Ashraf 1991 MLD 1134,
Anandi Lal and others v. Ram Sarup and others AIR 1936 All. 495,
Sitaram Kundanlal and others v. Pannalal Kundanlal and others AIR 1957 Nag. 1,
Rast Dei v. Bikal Maharana and others AIR 1965 Orissa 20,
M. Ataur Rehman Alvi v. Inamur Rahman 1974 SCMR 54,
Mst. Muhammad Bibi v. Additional Settlement Commissioner, Khirpur and 2 others PLD 1976 Kar. 181,
Mst. Ghulam Zainab and 7 others v. Mst. Tahira Sultana and 3 others PLD 1977 Lah. 830,
Bakhtiar Khan and 2 others v. Rahim Bux and 3 others PLD 1979 Kar. 410
|
| Laws Involved |
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),
Limitation Act (IX of 1908),
Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
|
| Sections |
0.1, Rr. 2 to 6,
0.11, R. 2,
Arts. 88, 89 & 106,
ONII, R. 11,
S. 10,
Arts. 88, 89 & 106,
Art. 129 (e)
|