Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Mst. HALEEMAN VS Respondent: REHMAT ALI And Other
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Muhammad Afzal Zullah, M. S. H. Qureshi Title: Mst. HALEEMAN vs REHMAT ALI And Other Case No.: Civil Petition No. 1394 of 1980 Second Appeal No. 169 of 1980 Date of Judgment:1984-08-19 Reported As: 1985 SCMR 1273 Result: Petition dismissed
Judgment ORDER M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.--The property in question which had been temporarily allotted as agricultural land to Elahi Bakhsh, father of the present respondents, in 1954, had been transferred to him in December, 1964. After his death the respondents were substituted as heirs vide mutation of inheritance, dated 31-7-1969. The same years they instituted a suit for, possession against the petitioners on the ground that they were trespassers. During the pendency of the suit and without proper proceeding for resumption, the property was transferred, on 3-4-1974, in favour of the petitioners under Scheme No: VII. Nevertheless, the trial Court, ignoring this transfer, proceeded with the suit which it decreed in favour of the respondents on 10-7-1975. The petitioners' first appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge on 5-2-1980 and their second appeal by the High Court by the impugned order, dated 29-9-1983. 2. It is submitted that after the transfer of the property in favour of the petitioners under Scheme No. VII, the Civil Court ceased to have jurisdiction and that the proper course for the respondents was to have moved the Settlement authorities who alone had the power to annul the transfer made in favour of the petitioners. This point had been raised before the High Court but repelled on the view that as the property had already stood transferred to the respondents-predecessor---in-interest, the same was not available and as such could not be settled in favour of the petitioners. After hearing learned counsel we find no merit in this petition, which is, therefore, dismissed.