| Case ID |
5c82d059-6a21-4464-8abb-8824b4a27a2c |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Revision.No.40 of 1996 |
| Decision Date |
Feb 21, 2003 |
| Hearing Date |
Feb 18, 2003 |
| Decision |
The Peshawar High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners, Mst. Bibi Jan and anothers, against Mir Zaman and others. The court found that the trial court and appellate court had properly decreed the suit for possession of land, and the petitioners, being co-owners of a different Khasra number, were not necessary parties to the original suit. The court held that the petitioners' claims of fraud and collusion were unfounded, as the compromise made during execution did not affect their rights, and the transfer of possession was valid under the law concerning co-owners. The court emphasized that the petitioners had no right to challenge the decree as they were not parties in the original case. The judgment concluded that there was no illegality or material irregularity to warrant interference with the lower courts' decisions. |
| Summary |
This case involves a civil revision petition before the Peshawar High Court concerning a dispute over property possession. The petitioners, Mst. Bibi Jan and others, contested the decision favoring Mir Zaman and others regarding land in Khasra Nos. 802, 804, and 805. The main contention of the petitioners was that they were co-owners of a property adjacent to the disputed land and argued that the lower courts had not properly considered their interests in the property. The High Court, however, upheld the decisions of the lower courts, affirming that the original suit was correctly adjudicated and that the petitioners were not necessary parties to the proceedings. The court clarified the legal principles governing co-ownership and the rights of co-sharers to alienate property within their possession. This case highlights the importance of ensuring all relevant parties are included in property disputes and the legal standards for establishing fraud in execution proceedings. The court's judgment reinforces the notion that co-owners can transfer rights to their property without needing consent from other co-owners, provided that such transfers are subject to partition adjustments in the future. The decision serves as a critical reference for future property disputes involving co-ownership and legal procedures under the Civil Procedure Code. |
| Court |
Peshawar High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
TALAAT QAYYUM QURESHI, J
|
| Lawyers |
Mushtaq Ali Tahirkheli,
Malik Fazal-e-Hussain
|
| Petitioners |
anothers,
Mst. BIBI JAN
|
| Respondents |
19 others,
MIR ZAMAN
|
| Citations |
2003 SLD 2583,
2003 CLC 909
|
| Other Citations |
Muhammad Muzaffar Khan v. Muhammad Yusuf Khan PLD 1959 SC 9,
Zardad Khan v. Mst. Safia Begum 1998 CLC 2006,
Syed Jamal Shah v. Abdul Qadir Shah and others PLD 1955 Pesh. 26,
Muhammad Shaft and others v. Mirza and others PLD 1959 (W.P.) Lah. 398,
Saad Ullah v. Ibrahim AIR 1925 Lah. 518,
Harnam Singh v. Jagat Singh AIR 1929 Lah. 168,
Sukhdew v. Parsi AIR 1940 Lah. 573,
Nazir Ahmad v. Muhammad Sharif and others 2001 SCMR 46,
Messrs Dadabhoy Cement Industries Ltd. and 6 others v. National Development Finance Corporation, Karachi 2002 SCMR 1761
|
| Laws Involved |
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
|
| Sections |
12(2),
115
|