Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: HALIMA VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD RAMZANHonorable Justice ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH
1988 S C M R 784
1988 S C M R 784
Present: Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ
Mst. HALIMA‑‑Petitioner
versus
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and another‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑142 of 1982, decided on 14th December, 1982.
(On appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Sind dated 17‑3‑1982 passed in Revision Application No.273 of 1980).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Misreading of evidence‑‑Suit for partition‑‑ Leave to appeal granted to consider contention that first appellate Court and High Court had misread evidence; that petitioner admittedly was in possession of 40 square yards of land from privately partitioned area and Courts below had given effect to an alleged private partition to which petitioner was not a party.
Ali Akbar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
M. Hussain Adil Khatri, Advocate Supreme Court With S.M.Abbas, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 14th December, 1982.
ORDER
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑Dispute in this case relates to partition of property bearing survey No.79, Sheet No.LY.12. Karachi measuring about 657 square yards which belonged to Ahmed s/o Haji Jumma and was inherited, after his death, by his two sons Ali Muhammad and Muhammad Usman. Both the sons died later on; Ali Muhammad left the petitioner, his daughter, and two sons, respondents herein; and Muhammad Usman left four sons and three daughters who are not parties to these proceedings.
2. Petitioner filed a suit for partition and accounts against her brothers, respondents herein, in respect of the aforesaid property. The trial Court passed a Preliminary Decree in petitioner's favour and appointed a Commissioner for settlement of accounts. On appeal by respondents, the judgment and decree passed in petitioner's favour was however set aside by the Additional District Judge, Karachi. Petitioner's revision application in Sind Court failed and she now seeks leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first appellate Court and the High Court have misread the evidence that petitioner admittedly is in possession of 40 square yards of land from the privately partitioned area and has given effect to an alleged private partition to which petitioner was not a party.
4. These submissions amongst others deserve consideration. Leave is granted.
M.I. /H‑33/S Leave granted.