Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD RAMZAN VS Respondent: BADARUDDIN
P L D 1963 W
P L D 1963 W. P. (Rev.) 62
Before Nasir Ahmad, Member Board of Revenue West Pakistan
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑Petitioner
versus
BADARUDDIN‑Respondent
Revision No. 556 of 1961‑62, decided on 14th November 1962, District Rahimyarkhan.
Partition‑Joint holding‑---
---Subsequent changes in possession, if not agreed to by parties, to be ignored and position existing at time of filing of application to be taken into consideration along with other factors.
ORDER
In my opinion this revision petition merits dismissal. The main point argued by the counsel for the petitioner is that the partition has not been effected in accordance with the posses sion of the parties. Since the respondent, Badar Din, was a Government servant and did not reside in the village the entire land in dispute, in fact, was in the de facto possession of his brother who is the petitioner and who was thus in a position to get entries made in the Khasra Girda wari and other revenue records as he liked. In view of these facts respect for possession should not be considered the only factor for partitioning the land. The joint holding has been quite properly partitioned according to naqis kamil area and no injustice has been done to any party. Further the land in dispute was originally entered in the joint possession of the two contest ing brothers in the revenue records. Partition proceedings were started by the petitioner on the 1st March 1961, and then the petitioner was shown in separate cultivation possession of certain field numbers in the Khasra Girdawari from Rabi 1961, onwards. Since this change was made after the partition proceedings had started it could not be given any value and is immaterial for the purposes of partition proceedings. The partition of joint holding is, amongst other factors, based upon the position which is existing at the time of making the application for partition and subsequent changes in possession, if not agreed to by the parties, should be ignored. As a result, I decline to interfere with the orders passed and dismiss the revision petition.
K. M. A. Petition dismissed.