Qandeel Ali Kazmi advocate

Qandeel Ali Kazmi advocate Solve all legal matters

05/12/2022

تتمہ بیان کی بناء پر کسی ملزم کو نامزد کرنا، قانونی طور پر قابلِ یقین نہ ہے.
(2019 YLR 2270).
خصوصاً سزائے موت کے کیسوں میں، تتمہ بیان کو ہمیشہ After Thought تصور کیا جاتا ہے، اور اس بیان کی کوئی اہمیت نہ ہے.
(2018 YLR 2363).
تتمہ بیان پر انحصار نہ کیا جا سکتا ہے، کیونکہ تتمہ بیان کی حیثیت دفعہ 161 ض ف کے بیان سے زیادہ نہ ہے.
(2018 YLR 340).
ضابطہ فوجداری میں تتمہ بیان کی کوئی Provision موجود نہ ہے، دورانِ تفتیش دیا گیا بیان FIR کا متبادل نہ ہو سکتا ہے.
(2018 PCrLJ 1).
(2019 MLD 1821).
تتمہ بیان FIR کا حصہ نہ ہے، نہ تو اس پر دستخط کرواۓ جا سکتے ہیں اور نہ ہی اس بیان کو ایگزیبٹ کیا جاسکتا ہے.
(2016 PCrLJ 220).

04/12/2022

2015 SCMR 56
PLJ 2015 SC 1
2014 SCMR 1762
In case of summoning of accused by Trial Court in private complaint to face trial or in case of summoning of accused placed in column No 2 of challan, for ensuring future appearance of accused before court, the trial court may require accused to furnish a bond with or without sureties as required U/S 91 CrPC. Applying for pre-arrest bail is not required.

03/12/2022

ڈگری کو set aside کرنے کے لیے کون سے شرائطِ کا ہونا ضروری ہے ، اور ان کا معیاد کب سے شروع ہوگا۔۔۔۔

خوبصورت فیصلہ

2022 CLC 1529

A defendant seeking setting aside of ex parte decree has to satisfy the Court that:-

(i) summons was not duly served on him; or
(ii) that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing.

Either of the aforesaid two conditions is to be fulfilled to set aside the ex parte decree. It is not essential that both the conditions should be satisfied simultaneously as the satisfaction of either of the conditions was sufficient in the eye of law, to recall the ex parte decree. In the present case, the ground alleged by the defendant to set aside the ex parte decree rested on the former condition, vis., that the summons was not duly served upon the defendant. The rule of procedure lay emphasis on due service of summons on a party so that such party was not deprived of its valuable right without providing an opportunity of defense.

: 2022 CLC 1529

The mode of effecting service of summons has been evolved within the framework of the provisions of Order V, C.P.C. Rules 10, 12, 13 and 15 are relevant rules to the mode of service. Rule 10 precisely provides that service of the summons shall be made by delivering or tendering a copy thereof to the defendant. When summons is served personally on the defendant by delivering or tendering its copy to him, ordinarily, it is deemed substantial compliance with the provisions relating to due service of the summons. Rules 12 and 13 provide a scheme of service through an agent of the defendant. Rules 15 next, lays down that where the defendant cannot be found and he has no agent to accept service, in that position, service may be made on any adult male member of his family who resided with him.

A perusal of the aforementioned provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure clearly shows that a summon is ordinarily to be served on the defendant personally. It can also be served through a male member of the family, if the said member is residing with the defendant and the defendant cannot be found nor is there any agent empowered to accept service on his behalf. It is further established as per the aforementioned rules that in a case where the serving officer delivers or tenders a copy of the summons to the defendant personally or to an agent or other person on his behalf, an acknowledgment in writing is to be obtained on the original summons. While proceedings under Rule 17, the Process Server is bound to indicate in his report that the defendant or his agent refused to sign the acknowledgment and he cannot find the defendant or his agent and then he has affixed a copy of the summons on the conspicuous part of the house where the defendant resides, the circumstances under which he has done it and the name and the address of the persons who identified the house in whose presence the copy was so affixed along with time. As per Rule 19 when a summon is returned under Rule 17, the Court is to examine the Serving Officer on oath touching his proceedings and after holding a further inquiry, if necessary, is to pass an order as to whether summons has been duly served or is to direct fresh service. While proceeding under rule 20 before passing of an order of substituted service, the Court is bound to record his satisfaction to the effect that there is reason to believe that the defendant is keeping out of the way to avoid service and thereafter the court is to order the service of summons through substituted modes in terms of rule 20.

A perusal of rule 20 would show that after the court satisfied itself that it is a case for substituted service, it shall order the summons to be served by affixing a copy thereof in some conspicuous place in the court-house. This requirement has not been shown to have been complied with. It is further required that a copy was also to be affixed upon some conspicuous part of the house in which the defendant is known to have resided or carried on business, or in such other manner as the Court thinks fit. Substituted service has the same effect as personal service.

: 2022 CLC 1529

As per Article 164 of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation for filing of an application for setting aside of ex parte decree is thirty days in cases where the summons is duly served with effect from the date of decree and in cases where the summons is not duly served with effect from the date from the acquisition of the knowledge of the decree.

: 2022 CLC 1529

The rule of „audi alteram partem’, as a salutary rule, has gained much importance in civilized States of the world. It is equally a weighty rule in the administration of justice contemplated by injunctions of Islam. This is how it is insisted upon that no one should be deprived of civil liberties and property unless provided with due opportunity of hearing. In presence of consensus of the superior judiciary of the Sub-Continent, it is invariably deemed expedient not to punish a party on account of its minor negligence in defending an action in the court of law unless such negligence was found accompanied by a willful and deliberate act.

03/12/2022

مسلم فیملی لاء آرڈیننس، 1961 کی دفعہ 9 --- محمڈن لا کے پیرا 369 اور 370 ----- باپ اپنی بیٹی کی مناسب دیکھ بھال کے الاؤنس کے ساتھ ساتھ شادی کے اخراجات بھی ادا کرنے کا پابند ہے۔
Section 9 of the Muslim Family Law Ordinance, 1961--- Para 369 and 370 of Muhammadan Law----Father is bound to pay reasonable maintenance allowance as well as marriage expenses of his daughter.
2022 LHC 7788
#والدین #بچے

03/12/2022

فیملی اجرا میں مدیون کو حاضری یا مقدمہ فوجداری میں ملزم کو گرفتاری دینے پر مجبور کرنے کیلئے اسکا قومی شناختی کارڈ بلاک نہ کیا جا سکتا ھے
P L D 2022 Lahore 756

National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance (VIII of 2000)---
----S. 18---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 199 & 175---Power to cancel, impound or confiscate cards---Jurisdiction of Courts---Scope---Petitioner assails order passed by Executing Court whereby National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) was directed to block his Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC)---Validity---Section 18(1) of the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 stipulates that all the cards issued by NADRA, including CNIC, shall be the property of the Federal Government and it may cancel, impound or confiscate it by an order after giving a show cause notice to the holder---Section 18(2) enumerates the circumstances in which it may take such an action---Provisions of S. 18 must be strictly construed and scrupulously followed as cancellation, impounding or confiscation of CNIC impacts the fundamental rights of a person---Executing Court had passed the impugned order without taking action under S. 18 into consideration---Section 18 does not allow blocking/digital impounding of the CNIC of a person to compel him to appear before the court---Constitutional petition was accepted, the impugned order was declared to be without legal authority and set aside.

National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance (VIII of 2000)---
----S. 18---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 175---Power to cancel, impound or confiscate cards---Jurisdiction of courts---Scope---Digital impounding/blocking of CNIC by courts cannot be permitted because it does not have the sanction of law---Such orders are contrary to Art. 175(2) of the Constitution and concept of rule of law.

National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance (VIII of 2000)---
----Ss. 18 & 19---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 9, 14 & 10-A---Power to cancel, impound or confiscate---Cards necessary for certain purposes---Security of person---Inviolability of dignity of man---Right to fair trial---Scope---Subsections (1) and (2) of S. 19 of the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000, specify a few circumstances when the National Identity Card is compulsorily required---Such include grant of passport, permit or other travel documents for going out of Pakistan and identification of a voter at various elections---Section 19(3) empowers the Federal Government specify any other purpose for which the production of any card issued as aforesaid shall be necessary---However, the need for the CNIC has increased manifold during recent years---Now almost every government and private organization requires CNIC from a person before they attend him---Not possible to get higher education, apply for a job, open a Bank account, get a driving license or arms license, get utility connections, purchase railway and air tickets, execute any instrument, stay in a hotel or lodge, appear in a court proceedings and enter in certain buildings and premises without production of CNIC---CNIC is essential for enjoyment of a number of fundamental rights, hence, a person cannot be deprived of it without due process.


Constitution of Pakistan---
----Arts. 9 & 14---Security of person---Inviolability of dignity of man---Right to identity---Scope---Courts have expanded the right to life over time and held that it includes the right to legal aid; the right to speedy trial; the right to bare necessities of life; protection against adverse effects of electro-magnetic fields; the right to pure and unpolluted water; the right to access to justice; the right to livelihood; the right to travel; the right to food, water, decent environment, education and medical care---Right to identity as concomitant to the right to lifeis protected under Arts. 9 & 14 of the Constitution.

Constitution of Pakistan---
----Arts. 9 & 14---Security of person---Inviolability of dignity of man---Right to identity---Scope---Personal identity of a person comprises all those aspects of his profile which are significant to him---Personal identity begins from the moment of conception and going beyond the information such as date of birth, encompasses his personal attributes like biographical data, physical traits and significant social relations, such as ties to family members, cultural or religion---Right to identity is associated with several other rights, e.g., the rights to a name, nationality, juridical personality, family and culture---Some legal experts consider it a part of the right of life while others posit that it is rooted in human dignity and thus fundamental and non-derogable.

Constitution of Pakistan---
----Art. 9---Security of person---Scope---Article 9 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and liberty and enjoins that no person shall be deprived of it save in accordance with law.

Constitution of Pakistan---
----Chap. 1 [Arts. 8 to 28]---Fundamental rights---Scope---Fundamental rights are the heart and soul of a living Constitution and must at all times be ready to embrace and protect the sensibilities and sensitivities of the people, they must be progressively and purposively interpreted to advance the frontiers of freedom, individual autonomy and free choice---Such vibrance and vitality is the hall mark of a living Constitution in a democracy.

Constitution of Pakistan---
----Chap. 1 [Arts. 8 to 28]---Fundamental rights---Scope---Fundamental rights in a living Constitution are to be liberally interpreted so that they can continue to embolden freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice.

Constitution of Pakistan---
----Chap. 1 [Arts. 8 to 28]---Fundamental rights---Scope---Not imperative that every right should be enumerated as a fundamental right in the Constitution---Such can be claimed that even if it forms an integral part of a named fundamental right or is of the same nature or character or if its recognition is necessary to make the exercise of the named fundamental right meaningful and effective.


Constitution of Pakistan---
----Chap. 1 [Arts. 8 to 28]---Fundamental rights---Scope---Fundamental rights call for a generous interpretation avoiding what has been called the austerity of tabulated legalism, suitable to give to individuals the full measure of the fundamental rights and freedoms referred to.


JUDGMENT

TARIQ SALEEM SHEIKH, J.---Respondent No.2 instituted a suit for recovery of dower against the Petitioner in the Family Court at Lahore which was decided in her favour vide judgment and decree dated 13.08.2020. The Petitioner did not satisfy that decree so she filed ex*****on petition for its enforcement. The Executing Court issued him notice but he did not appear and subsequently even avoided coercive process. Eventually, on the application of Respondent No.2, the Court directed the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) to block his Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC) vide order dated 04.06.2021. Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (the "Constitution"), the Petitioner lays challenge to that order (the "Impugned Order").

The submissions

2. The counsel for the Petitioner contends that the right to identity is a part of right to life and it cannot be syncopated without due sanction of law. A person's CNIC can be cancelled, impounded or confiscated only by the Federal Government and that too on the grounds enumerated in section 18(2) of the National Database Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 (the "Ordinance"), which do not exist in the instant case. Hence, the Executing Court had no jurisdiction to pass the Impugned Order.

3. The Assistant Attorney General submits that the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, does not apply to the Family Court in terms of section 17 of the Family Courts Act, 1964, so it is competent to regulate its own proceedings. It can adopt any procedure unless it is specifically prohibited by law. In the instant case, the Executing Court took all possible steps - even issued coercive process - to procure the Petitioner's attendance but failed. The Impugned Order was passed as a last resort.

4. The counsel for Respondent No.2 has adopted the Law Officer's arguments. He argues that the Impugned Order was necessary to maintain rule of law and prevent the frustration of decree dated 13.8.2020.

Opinion

5. The personal identity of a person comprises all those aspects of his profile which are significant to him.1 His personal identity begins from the moment of conception and, going beyond the information such as date of birth, encompasses his personal attributes like biographical data, physical traits and significant social relations, such as ties to family members, culture or religion.2 In this view of the matter, the right to identity is associated with several other rights, e.g. the rights to a name, nationality, juridical personality, family and culture.3 Some legal experts consider it a part of the right of life while others posit that it is rooted in human dignity and thus fundamental and non-derogable.

6. The international law focuses more on what may be described as "legal identity". Article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) proclaims that everyone has the right to be recognized as a person before the law. Articles 7 and 8 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child explicitly protect the child's right to identity. These are reproduced below for ready reference:

Article 7

1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.

2. States Parties shall ensure the implementation of these rights in accordance with their national law and their obligations under the relevant international instruments in this field, in particular where the child would otherwise be stateless.

Article 8

1. States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference.

2. Where a child is illegally deprived of some or all of the elements of his or her identity, States Parties shall provide appropriate assistance and protection, with a view to re-establishing speedily his or her identity.

7. The other treaties which seek protection of identity rights inter alia include the Hague Adoption Convention4 and the anti-human trafficking conventions.

8. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development contemplates that legal identity is catalytic for achieving at least ten Sustainable Development Goals. Therefore, it has established it as a specific target - Target 16.9 (legal identity for all).5 The concept note of the United Nations Legal Identity Expert Group says:

"For the purpose of the operational United Nations definition, legal identity is defined as the basic characteristics of an individual's identity. e.g. name, s*x, place and date of birth conferred through registration and the issuance of a certificate by an authorized civil registration authority following the occurrence of birth. In the absence of birth registration, legal identity may be conferred by a legally-recognized identification authority; this system should be linked to the civil registration system to ensure a holistic approach to legal identity from birth to death. Legal identity is retired by the issuance of a death certificate by the civil registration authority upon registration of death."6

9. The Constitution of Pakistan (1973) does not expressly guarantee the right to identity but can it still be claimed? In The Minister of Home Affairs and the Minister of Education v. Collins MacDonald Fisher and Eunice Carmeta Fisher, (1979) 3 All ER 21, Lord Wilberforce held that fundamental rights "call for a generous interpretation avoiding what has been called 'the austerity of tabulated legalism', suitable to give to individuals the full measure of the fundamental rights and freedoms referred to." The courts in India and Pakistan are essentially of the same view. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597) the Supreme Court of India held that it is not imperative that every right should be enumerated as a fundamental right in the Constitution. It can be claimed even if it forms an integral part of a named fundamental right or is of the same nature or character or if its recognition is necessary to make the exercise of the named fundamental right meaningful and effective. In Jurist Foundation v. Federal Government through the Secretary Ministry of Defence and others (PLD 2020 SC 1) the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that "fundamental rights in a living Constitution are to be liberally interpreted so that they continue to embolden freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice." In Hafiz Junaid Mahmood v. Government of Punjab and others (PLD 2017 Lahore 1) this Court held that "fundamental rights are the heart and soul of a living Constitution and must at all times be ready to embrace and protect the sensibilities and sensitivities of the people. They must be progressively and purposively interpreted to advance the frontiers of freedom, individual autonomy and free choice. Such vibrance and vitality is the hallmark of a living constitution in a democracy."

10. Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973) guarantees the right to life and liberty and enjoins that no person shall be deprived of it save in accordance with law. In Ms. Shehla Zia and others v. WAPDA (PLD 1994 SC 693) the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the term "life" in the said Article means more than mere animal existence. It ruled:

The word "life" is very significant as it covers all facets of human existence. The word "life" has not been defined in the Constitution but it does not mean nor can it be restricted only to the vegetative or animal life or mere existence from conception to death. Life includes all such amenities and facilities which a person born in a free country is entitled to enjoy with dignity legally and constitutionally."

The Court added:

"The Constitutional Law in America provides an extensive and wide meaning to the word 'life' which includes all such rights which are necessary and essential for leading a free, proper, comfortable and clean life. The requirement of acquiring knowledge, to establish home, the freedoms as contemplated by the Constitution, the personal rights and their enjoyment are nothing but part of life. A person is entitled to enjoy his personal rights and to be protected from encroachments on such personal rights, freedoms and liberties. Any action taken which may create hazards of life will be encroaching upon the personal rights of a citizen to enjoy the life according to law."

11. Our courts have expanded the right to life over time and held that it includes "the right to legal aid; the right to speedy trial; the right to bare necessities of life; protection against adverse effects of electro-magnetic fields; the right to pure and unpolluted water; the right of access to justice;"7 the right to livelihood,8 the right to travel,9 the right to food, water, decent environment, education and medical care.10 Keeping in view the international human rights jurisprudence discussed in the earlier part of this judgment which considers the right to identity as concomitant to the right to life, I hold that the said right is protected under Article 9 of our Constitution. I would also read it into Article 14 which guarantees dignity of man.

12. Let's now come to the National Identity Card. The National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000, provides for registration of all persons. Section 10 entitles every citizen to have the National Identity Card who has attained the age of 18 years and is registered under section 9. The Ordinance also makes provision for issuance of Pakistan Origin Cards (section 11), Overseas Identity Cards (section 12) and Alien Registration Cards (section 13). Section 19(4) stipulates that the cards issued under the Ordinance, including the National Identity Card, shall be the proof of his identity as could be established from the contents of such card.

13. Subsections (1) and (2) of section 19 of the Ordinance specify a few circumstances when the National Identity Card is compulsorily required. These include grant of passport, permit or other travel document for going out of Pakistan and identification of a voter at various elections. Section 19(3) empowers the Federal Government to specify any other purpose for which the production of any card issued as aforesaid shall be necessary. However, the need for the CNIC has increased manifold during recent years. In Muhammad Umar v. Federation of Pakistan, through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 2 others (PLD 2017 Sindh 585) the Sindh High Court observed that now almost every government and private organization requires CNIC from a person before they attend him. "It is not possible to get higher education, apply for a job, open a bank account, get a driving licence or arms licence, get utility connections, purchase railway and air tickets, execute any instrument, stay in a hotel or lodge, appear in a court proceedings and enter in certain building and premises without production of CNIC." In this backdrop it can be legitimately argued that the CNIC is essential for enjoyment of a number of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Hence, a person cannot be deprived of it without due process.

14. Section 18(1) of the Ordinance stipulates that all the cards issued by NADRA, including the CNIC, shall be the property of the Federal Government and it may cancel, impound or confiscate it by an order after giving a show cause notice to the holder. Section 18(2) enumerates the circumstances in which it may take such an action. It reads:

(2) An order under subsection (1) cancelling, impounding or confiscating a card may be made only if there is reason to believe that-

(a) the card has been obtained by a person who is not eligible to hold such card, by posting himself as eligible;

(b) more than one cards have been obtained by the same person on the same eligibility criteria;

(c) the particulars shown on the card have been obliterated or tampered with; or

(d) the card is forged.

15. Inasmuch as cancellation, impounding or confiscation of CNIC impacts the fundamental rights of a person, the provisions of section 18 of the Ordinance must be strictly construed and scrupulously followed. Any order passed or action taken on a consideration other than those stipulated therein cannot sustain.

16. In the present case, the Executing Court has passed the Impugned Order dated 04.06.2021 without taking section 18 of the Ordinance into consideration. The said section does not allow blocking/ digital impounding of the CNIC of a person to compel him to appear before the court.

17. I am fully aware of the fact that the courts frequently direct digital impounding of the CNIC because it is an effective means to secure presence of a person. Sometimes it even impels a fugitive from law to surrender. Notwithstanding the benefits, this cannot be permitted because it does not have the sanction of law. Such orders are contrary to Article 175(2) of the Constitution11 and the concept of rule of law. The Federal Government may, therefore, propose the Parliament to amend the Ordinance.

Disposition

18. In view of what has been discussed above, this petition is accepted. The Impugned Order dated 04.06.2021 is declared to be without legal authority and set aside.

03/12/2022

(1) relevant complete authority of border line cases u/s 9C-CNSA:

2015 SCMR 735
2015 SCMR 1077
2012 SCMR 573
PLD 2012 SC 380.

(2)Case laws on 9-C CNSA
Bail in Narcotics cases on the ground of border line case.

2017 YLR 874, 1282. 2016 SCMR 1424, 2016 P.Crl.J 1075, 2016 P.Crl.J 831 and 2016 P.Crlj 1315.
3)1997SCMR 947

Requirements of 103 Cr.P.C. not complied with, entitled for bail.
2015 SCMR 735

If the quantity of Narcotics is more than one K.G but less the 10 k.G, punishment should be for a period of greater than seven years to anything less than fourteen years.

9C, Bail was granted to accused who was charged for possessing 3437 grams of charas (drug) despite of the fact that police had obtained search warrant from magistrate but despite of directions elders of locality were not associated and charas (drug) was not recovered from the exclusive possession of accused but charas was recovered from the room where accused was residing.
(2019 YLR 2798).

03/12/2022

2022 SCMR 13

Inheritance---Legal heir or a third party laying exclusive claim to property---Burden of proof ---On the death of a Muslim his/her property devolved on his/her legal heirs in accordance with the shares prescribed by Islamic Shari'ah and possession by any legal heir was deemed to be possession by all---If someone laid exclusive claim to the property, or to any part thereof, which was contrary to the shares as determined by Shari'ah, the burden to establish such claim rested on the one alleging it.

03/12/2022

JOINT KHATA 1
co-sharer could not file a suit for declaration and possession against the other co-sharer but a suit for partition could only be filed.
> 2016 YLR 1300
••••••
JOINT KHATA

Suit for possess - co sharer can not file a suit for declaration & possession against other co sharer

> 2016 YLR 1300
> 2003 MLD 484
••••
JOINT KHATA

Co sharer would be considered to be in possession of each and every inch of un-partitioned land according to his share.
> 2016 SCMR 910
> 2007 SCMR 1884
> 2005 SCMR 1335
> 1998 SCMR 1589
> 1994 PLD SC 336
> 1992 SCMR 138
> 1989 SCMR 130
••••••
JOINT KHATA
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--S.42---Suit for declaration---When share in the Khata has been transferred through mutation, then no question of transfer of specific property from joint Khata arises and if the purchasers are in possession of specific property, the remedy for the party lies anywhere else and a party cannot challenge the judgment and decree which has been passed in favour of that party.
> 2016 M L D 80
( Mst. BUSHRA BIBI CASE )

••••••••
(a) Co sharer Joint immovable property Co sharer's rights Extent of In case of joint immovable property, each co sharer deemed to be interested in every inch of subject matter irrespective of quantity of his interest One co sharer cannot be allowed to act in a manner which constitutes an invasion on the right of other co--sharer Co sharer in possession of a portion of joint property cannot change nature of property in his possession unless partition takes place by metes and bounds.
> 1989 S C M R 130
( ALI GOIIAR KHAN )
••••••

(b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)
5. 54 Perpetual injunction Construction on joint property without effecting partition Elect One co sharer being not entitled to change the nature of joint property in his possession, appellant as co sharer was found entitled to decree for perpetual injunction against respondent, till partition was effected in
> 1989 S C M R 130
•••••

(a) Co sharer
Joint possession Law of Limitation Application Question of a limitation does not arise in case of joint possession as co sharer.

> 2001 C L C 1431
> PLD 1994 SC 462
•••••

(d) Co-sharer-Sale by---Joint Khata---Agreement of sale not finding mention of delivery of possession of specific Khasra numbers 'to vendee out of joint Khata---Vendee alleging his exclusive possession over such specific Khasra numbers under agreement---Validity---When property was joint and not partitioned, then fact of such exclusive possession of vendee could not be believed---Every co-owner/co-sharer would be considered to be in 'possession of each inch of unpartitioned land according to his share.
> 2007 SCMR 1884

•••••

> 2006 YLR 856
Injunction against co-sharer cannot be issued because co-sharer had constructive possession in each inch in the property.
•••••

> 2006 YLR 828
Co-sharer who raises any construction on joint property without the consent of other co-sharer and without the permission of the court, is not entitled to any compensation and encroachment in value as such property is for common advantage of all the co-sharer
•••••

> 2006 MLD 435,
Interim injunction could not be issued in favour of one co-sharer against other co-sharer. All the construction made by one co-sharer would be at his own risk and cast in a suit for partition.
•••••

PLD 1998 SC 1509
In a joint khata, one co-sharer could not sale out trees standing there and further make a construction without due partition.
••••••

2006 MLD 442,
Co-sharer may protect his possession by way of injunction till regular partition.
••••••

2008 YLR 420,
Co-sharer in possession over joint property could not dispossessed accept through regular partition
••••••

2008 YLR 2454,
One co-sharer without consent of other co-sharer could not change nature of the suit property except through partition
••••••

> 2009 YLR 2454,
Every co-sharer had interest in each and every inch of joint property partitioned and could not be permitted to alter the character of property without consulting the other co-sharer
••••••
2010 C L C 285
ABDUL GHAFFAR-Versus-WAQAS HAFEEZ and others
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---O. ###IX, Rr.1 & 2---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.8---Suit for possession---Family partition---No nexus or connection with disputed land---Effect---Plaintiff filed suit for possession through partition along with an application for temporary injunction claiming therein that the plaintiff being co-sharer in the disputed property could not be deprived of use of his share as he was entitled to and had a proprietary interest in every inch of the undivided Khata---Defendants contested suit on the ground that as a result of family partition the defendants were in possession of the disputed land out of total land in joint Khata for the last 25 years and that the plaintiff had no nexus or connection with the said partition---Trial Court dismissed application for restraining order against defendant---Appellate Court on appeal also dismissed the same---Validity---Record revealed that the suit was at preliminary stage---Right of the plaintiff in the disputed land and its extent had yet to be determined by recording of evidence---Defendants were in exclusive possession of the disputed property for the past 25 years on the basis of family partition---Prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff was not clearly made out---Defendants had invested huge sums of money in construction of CNG Station and installation of equipment and machinery thereon---Order restraining defendants from operating the CNG Station would cause inconvenience to them more compared to the plaintiff who had no nexus or connection with the disputed land for the past 25 years---Loss, if any, would be calculated in monetary terms---Ingredient of irrepairable loss was missing in the suit---Plaintiff had failed to show any illegality or material irregularity committed by subordinate courts in exercise of jurisdiction vested in them---Petition was dismissed by High Court.

Muhammad Muzaffar Khan y. Muhammad Yusuf Khan PLD 1959 SC (Pak) 9; Shah Hussain v. Abdul Qayyum and others 1984 SCMR 427; Muhammad Sharif and 3 others v. Ghulam Hussain and another 1995 SCMR 514 and AmanUllah v. HameedUllah and others 2006 YLR 856 ref.

(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---O. ###IX, Rr.1 & 2---Injunctive relief-Equitable and discretionary in nature---All three ingredients have to be present at the same time---In case any one of the ingredients is missing, the court cannot grant temporary injunction.

(c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--S. 8-Suit for possession---Family partition---Co-sharer in possession in a Khata has a right to alienate a specific piece of land in his possession and the transferee acquires the same rights as the transferor.
•••••••

> 2009 SCMR 688,
> 2002/2001 CLC 71,
Co-sharer was dispossessed. He may recover possession by filing suit U/S 9 of Specific Relief Act or suit for partition
•••••

> 2011 MLD 1570,
Co-sharer in joint khata could not make construction without regular partition
••••••

> 2011 MLD 1548,
> 2011 MLD 1548,
Joint family property was privately partitioned according to report of bailiff.

Constructions were made at roof level. Permission to complete further construction was granted. Further construction would be at own risk and cast.
•••••

> 2011 MLD 1518,
> PLD 2012 Islamabad 68,
> 2012 CLC 1618
Co-sharer to protect his possession may file suit for permanent injunction until regular partition is effected
•••••

> PLJ 2012 SC (AJK) 182
Co-sharer in one khasra no would be a co-sharer in all khasra no and khata
•••••

> 2013 CLC 174
The possession of one co-sharer would be considered a possession on behalf of all co-sharer
•••••

PLD 2013 Peshawar 38
One co-sharer on the basis of possession could not take plea of adverse possession against other co-sharer
•••••

> 2013 MLD 1557
One co-sharer who is out of possession would be considered in possession on the principle of constructive possession
•••••

> 2013 CLC 711,
>?2008 YLR 420,
> PLD 1956 Pesh 96,
> PLD 1968 Dhaka 259,
> 2001 CLC 1211,
Simple suit for possession against co-sharer without relief of partition is not maintainable
•••••

> 2014 MLD 1116
Limitation would not run against co-sharer who is not in possession to file suit for possession against other co-sharer who is in possession.
•••••

> PLD 2014 Lahore 417
Property from one co-sharer maybe acquired through sale or gift but the same would be subject to regular partition and the new holder of title on the basis of sale etc could not established his own right beyond the right of original owner.
•••••

> 2008 YLR 420
One co-sharer against another co-sharer to recover possession of the suit property according to his respective share cannot file suit for possession rather co-sharer would file suit for partition.
•••••

> 1998 S C M R 1589
ABDUR REHMAN and 7 others-versuS-Sayed SULTAN ALI SHAH and 5 others
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--S.42---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Co-sharer in possession of joint Khata---Entitlement to retain possession till partition---Plaintiff's suit for declaration with perpetual injunction was dismissed by Trial Court---First Appellate Court, however, decreed plaintiff's suit while High Court set aside decree and judgment of First Appellate Court and restored judgment and decree of Trial Court whereby suit had been dismissed---Validity---Leave to appeal was granted to consider that "QabzaHissadari" having been transferred to plaintiff. they were entitled to remain in possession of land as co-sharers till such time as partition of Shamilat would take place; whether entries in "WajibulArz" showed that plaintiffs, as co-sharers, were entitled to bring land in question, under cultivation; and that plaintiffs being in physical possession of more than their shares, such fact was irrelevant to their right to remain in possession till partition of suit land.

(b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--S.42---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185---Plaintiff's possession in joint Khata over more area than their share in such Khata---Effect---First Appellate Court had rightly found that plaintiffs were entitled to keep whatever property they had reclaimed till partition of Shamilat land by metes and bounds would take place---High Court fell in error in modifying decree and judgment of First Appellate Court to the extent of plaintiffs' share in Shamilat land--¬Judgment and decree of High Court was set aside while that of First Appellate Court decreeing plaintiff's suit to the extent of their possession, was restored in circumstances.
•••••
NO STAY IN JOINT KHATA

> 2002 SCMR 1298
> 2004 MLD 1844
••••••JOINT KHATA 1
co-sharer could not file a suit for declaration and possession against the other co-sharer but a suit for partition could only be filed.
> 2016 YLR 1300
••••••
JOINT KHATA

Suit for possess - co sharer can not file a suit for declaration & possession against other co sharer

> 2016 YLR 1300
> 2003 MLD 484
••••
JOINT KHATA

Co sharer would be considered to be in possession of each and every inch of un-partitioned land according to his share.
> 2016 SCMR 910
> 2007 SCMR 1884
> 2005 SCMR 1335
> 1998 SCMR 1589
> 1994 PLD SC 336
> 1992 SCMR 138
> 1989 SCMR 130
••••••
JOINT KHATA
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--S.42---Suit for declaration---When share in the Khata has been transferred through mutation, then no question of transfer of specific property from joint Khata arises and if the purchasers are in possession of specific property, the remedy for the party lies anywhere else and a party cannot challenge the judgment and decree which has been passed in favour of that party.
> 2016 M L D 80
( Mst. BUSHRA BIBI CASE )

••••••••
(a) Co sharer Joint immovable property Co sharer's rights Extent of In case of joint immovable property, each co sharer deemed to be interested in every inch of subject matter irrespective of quantity of his interest One co sharer cannot be allowed to act in a manner which constitutes an invasion on the right of other co--sharer Co sharer in possession of a portion of joint property cannot change nature of property in his possession unless partition takes place by metes and bounds.
> 1989 S C M R 130
( ALI GOIIAR KHAN )
••••••

(b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)
5. 54 Perpetual injunction Construction on joint property without effecting partition Elect One co sharer being not entitled to change the nature of joint property in his possession, appellant as co sharer was found entitled to decree for perpetual injunction against respondent, till partition was effected in
> 1989 S C M R 130
•••••

(a) Co sharer
Joint possession Law of Limitation Application Question of a limitation does not arise in case of joint possession as co sharer.

> 2001 C L C 1431
> PLD 1994 SC 462
•••••

(d) Co-sharer-Sale by---Joint Khata---Agreement of sale not finding mention of delivery of possession of specific Khasra numbers 'to vendee out of joint Khata---Vendee alleging his exclusive possession over such specific Khasra numbers under agreement---Validity---When property was joint and not partitioned, then fact of such exclusive possession of vendee could not be believed---Every co-owner/co-sharer would be considered to be in 'possession of each inch of unpartitioned land according to his share.
> 2007 SCMR 1884

•••••

> 2006 YLR 856
Injunction against co-sharer cannot be issued because co-sharer had constructive possession in each inch in the property.
•••••

> 2006 YLR 828
Co-sharer who raises any construction on joint property without the consent of other co-sharer and without the permission of the court, is not entitled to any compensation and encroachment in value as such property is for common advantage of all the co-sharer
•••••

> 2006 MLD 435,
Interim injunction could not be issued in favour of one co-sharer against other co-sharer. All the construction made by one co-sharer would be at his own risk and cast in a suit for partition.
•••••

PLD 1998 SC 1509
In a joint khata, one co-sharer could not sale out trees standing there and further make a construction without due partition.
••••••

2006 MLD 442,
Co-sharer may protect his possession by way of injunction till regular partition.
••••••

2008 YLR 420,
Co-sharer in possession over joint property could not dispossessed accept through regular partition
••••••

2008 YLR 2454,
One co-sharer without consent of other co-sharer could not change nature of the suit property except through partition
••••••

> 2009 YLR 2454,
Every co-sharer had interest in each and every inch of joint property partitioned and could not be permitted to alter the character of property without consulting the other co-sharer
••••••
2010 C L C 285
ABDUL GHAFFAR-Versus-WAQAS HAFEEZ and others
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---O. ###IX, Rr.1 & 2---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.8---Suit for possession---Family partition---No nexus or connection with disputed land---Effect---Plaintiff filed suit for possession through partition along with an application for temporary injunction claiming therein that the plaintiff being co-sharer in the disputed property could not be deprived of use of his share as he was entitled to and had a proprietary interest in every inch of the undivided Khata---Defendants contested suit on the ground that as a result of family partition the defendants were in possession of the disputed land out of total land in joint Khata for the last 25 years and that the plaintiff had no nexus or connection with the said partition---Trial Court dismissed application for restraining order against defendant---Appellate Court on appeal also dismissed the same---Validity---Record revealed that the suit was at preliminary stage---Right of the plaintiff in the disputed land and its extent had yet to be determined by recording of evidence---Defendants were in exclusive possession of the disputed property for the past 25 years on the basis of family partition---Prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff was not clearly made out---Defendants had invested huge sums of money in construction of CNG Station and installation of equipment and machinery thereon---Order restraining defendants from operating the CNG Station would cause inconvenience to them more compared to the plaintiff who had no nexus or connection with the disputed land for the past 25 years---Loss, if any, would be calculated in monetary terms---Ingredient of irrepairable loss was missing in the suit---Plaintiff had failed to show any illegality or material irregularity committed by subordinate courts in exercise of jurisdiction vested in them---Petition was dismissed by High Court.

Muhammad Muzaffar Khan y. Muhammad Yusuf Khan PLD 1959 SC (Pak) 9; Shah Hussain v. Abdul Qayyum and others 1984 SCMR 427; Muhammad Sharif and 3 others v. Ghulam Hussain and another 1995 SCMR 514 and AmanUllah v. HameedUllah and others 2006 YLR 856 ref.

(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---O. ###IX, Rr.1 & 2---Injunctive relief-Equitable and discretionary in nature---All three ingredients have to be present at the same time---In case any one of the ingredients is missing, the court cannot grant temporary injunction.

(c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--S. 8-Suit for possession---Family partition---Co-sharer in possession in a Khata has a right to alienate a specific piece of land in his possession and the transferee acquires the same rights as the transferor.
•••••••

> 2009 SCMR 688,
> 2002/2001 CLC 71,
Co-sharer was dispossessed. He may recover possession by filing suit U/S 9 of Specific Relief Act or suit for partition
•••••

> 2011 MLD 1570,
Co-sharer in joint khata could not make construction without regular partition
••••••

> 2011 MLD 1548,
> 2011 MLD 1548,
Joint family property was privately partitioned according to report of bailiff.

Constructions were made at roof level. Permission to complete further construction was granted. Further construction would be at own risk and cast.
•••••

> 2011 MLD 1518,
> PLD 2012 Islamabad 68,
> 2012 CLC 1618
Co-sharer to protect his possession may file suit for permanent injunction until regular partition is effected
•••••

> PLJ 2012 SC (AJK) 182
Co-sharer in one khasra no would be a co-sharer in all khasra no and khata
•••••

> 2013 CLC 174
The possession of one co-sharer would be considered a possession on behalf of all co-sharer
•••••

PLD 2013 Peshawar 38
One co-sharer on the basis of possession could not take plea of adverse possession against other co-sharer
•••••

> 2013 MLD 1557
One co-sharer who is out of possession would be considered in possession on the principle of constructive possession
•••••

> 2013 CLC 711,
>?2008 YLR 420,
> PLD 1956 Pesh 96,
> PLD 1968 Dhaka 259,
> 2001 CLC 1211,
Simple suit for possession against co-sharer without relief of partition is not maintainable
•••••

> 2014 MLD 1116
Limitation would not run against co-sharer who is not in possession to file suit for possession against other co-sharer who is in possession.
•••••

> PLD 2014 Lahore 417
Property from one co-sharer maybe acquired through sale or gift but the same would be subject to regular partition and the new holder of title on the basis of sale etc could not established his own right beyond the right of original owner.
•••••

> 2008 YLR 420
One co-sharer against another co-sharer to recover possession of the suit property according to his respective share cannot file suit for possession rather co-sharer would file suit for partition.
•••••

> 1998 S C M R 1589
ABDUR REHMAN and 7 others-versuS-Sayed SULTAN ALI SHAH and 5 others
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--S.42---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Co-sharer in possession of joint Khata---Entitlement to retain possession till partition---Plaintiff's suit for declaration with perpetual injunction was dismissed by Trial Court---First Appellate Court, however, decreed plaintiff's suit while High Court set aside decree and judgment of First Appellate Court and restored judgment and decree of Trial Court whereby suit had been dismissed---Validity---Leave to appeal was granted to consider that "QabzaHissadari" having been transferred to plaintiff. they were entitled to remain in possession of land as co-sharers till such time as partition of Shamilat would take place; whether entries in "WajibulArz" showed that plaintiffs, as co-sharers, were entitled to bring land in question, under cultivation; and that plaintiffs being in physical possession of more than their shares, such fact was irrelevant to their right to remain in possession till partition of suit land.

(b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--S.42---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185---Plaintiff's possession in joint Khata over more area than their share in such Khata---Effect---First Appellate Court had rightly found that plaintiffs were entitled to keep whatever property they had reclaimed till partition of Shamilat land by metes and bounds would take place---High Court fell in error in modifying decree and judgment of First Appellate Court to the extent of plaintiffs' share in Shamilat land--¬Judgment and decree of High Court was set aside while that of First Appellate Court decreeing plaint to the extent of their possession, was restored in circumstances.
•••••
NO STAY IN JOINT KHATA

> 2002 SCMR 1298
> 2004 MLD 1844

Address

Koral
Islamabad

Telephone

+923015362082

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Qandeel Ali Kazmi advocate posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to Qandeel Ali Kazmi advocate:

Share