Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: DIN MUHAMMAD VS Respondent: GHULAM MUSTAFAHonorable Justice Saad Saood Jan
1988 S C M R 226
1988 S C M R 226
Present: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
DIN MUHAMMAD--Petitioner
versus
GHULAM MUSTAFA and others--Respondents
Civil Petitions Nos.839 and 891 of 1980, decided on 28th November, 87.
(From the judgment dated 30-4-1980 of the Lahore High Court ssed in R.S.As. No.25 of 1962 and 27 of 1964 respectively).
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--
-O.VII, R.11--Dispute over ownership of land--District Judge, after proper appraisal of entire evidence, finding that the land in dispute longed to respondent and that his mother was merely a Benamidar Su ch finding being on question of fact, High Court, held, was right declining to interfere with it in second appeal--Failure of respondent make up deficiency in Court-fee within time fixed by District judge also not established--Petitions for leave to appeal found to be without any merit and dismissed.
Sh.Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in both e Petitions).
Date of hearing: 28th November, 1987.
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--In these petitions for special leave t peal, there is a finding by the District Judge, recorded after a proper appraisal of the entire evidence, that the land in dispute longed to Ghulam Mustafa, respondent No. 1, and that his mother Mst.Zainab Bibi was merely a benamidar. This is a finding on a question of fact and the High Court was right in declining to interfere the it in second appeal. The petitioners were closely related to Mst.Zainab Bibi and they must have been aware that the true owner the land in dispute was Ghulam Mustafa and not his mother who d no funds of her own. That being so, the subsequent sale in our of Ghulam Mustafa or his conduct was entirely insufficient to deprive him of his rights in the land in dispute or raise any consumption against him.
(2). We are also not impressed with the argument that Ghulam mustafa had failed to make up the deficiency in court-fee within the re fixed by the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge d mentioned in his judgment that,, the copy of the decree sheet when prepared should be forwarded to Ghulam Mustafa or his counsel for compliance with the direction with regard to making up the deficiency. It does not appear that this direction was complied with by his office. That being so, he cannot be penalized for not making up the deficiency within fifteen days of the announcement of the judgment by the learned District Judge.
3. For the reasons stated above, these petitions are without any merit and are hereby dismissed.
10/S S.Q./D Petition dismissed.