MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.- Facts giving rise to the filing of the instant writ petition are to the effect that the predecessor-in-interest of petitioner and respondents Nos. 1 & 2 namely late Kabir Ahmad Sheikh and late Mumtaz A. Sheikh were the partners of Fazal Din and Sons (the firm). The said firm amongst others also owned a property measuring 56 kanals comprising. Of khasra Nos.
4928, 4958, 4959 & 4960 situated at Mauza Ichhra, Tehsil Cantt. District Lahore. Kabir A. Sheikh died on 23.7.1988 and Mumtaz A. Sheikh died on 19.11.1999. The legal heirs of these two deceased persons obtained a Succession Certificate from the Senior Civil Judge, Lahore and applied to respondent No. 5 Settlement Officer/Collector, Lahore for entering the names of the legal heirs of the deceased partners in the revenue record with regard to said property. The respondent Nd. 5 dismissed the application and directed them to resort other alternate remedy available under the law vide his order dated 8.3.2004. The petitioner filed a revision petition before respondent No. 4 Executive District Officer (Revenue), Lahore against the order dated 8.3.2004, which has been accepted vide order dated 3.4.2004!'directing that the entries of the legal heirs be made in the revenue record.
Feeling aggrieved, respondent No. 1 filed a revision petition against the order dated 3.4.2004 before respondent No. 3 Member (Judicial II), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, who vide his order dated 20.11.2004 accepted the revision petition setting aside the order dated 3.4.2004 passed by respondent No. 4 review petition has been filed against the order dated 20.11.2004 which too was dismissed vide order dated 30.11.2005.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after the death of deceased Kabir A. Sheikh and Mumtaz A. Sheikh partners of firm Fazal Din and Sons, th^u petitioner and respondents Nos. 1 & 2 being legal heirs, are entitled the property left by the deceased persons and the same be transferred in their name by entering their names in the Revenue Record. Further contends that after the death of said Directors of the; firm, the petitioner became the partners of the firm as legal heirs of the deceased.
3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
4. It is an admitted position that M/s. Fazal Din & Sons is a firm. As per Section 4 of the Partnership Act, 1932, the partnership is relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all. Persons who have entered into partnership with one another are called individually "partners" and collectively "a firm" and the name under which their business is carried on is called the "firm name". (As such on the mere ground that the business of the firm is still continuing despite the death of the original partners). According to. The Privy Council a firm created under the Partnership Act may be a personality distinct from its members, but it does not constitute a separate legal person or entity. According to the Indian Law, the firm is not an entity or a person "in law" but is merely an association of individuals. Though a firm may possess some attributes of a personality, it is only a collective name of its members, and is not a legal person or entity, distinct and separate from the partners, In this, context reliance can be placed to the case of Motal Bai v. Abdul Aziz and others (P.L.D. 1968 Karachi 635).
5. Section 14 of the Partnership Act, 1932, enshrines that subject to Contract between the partners, the property of the firm includes all property and rights and interest in property originally brought into the stock of the firm, or acquired, by purchase or otherwise, by or for the purpose and in the course of the business of the firm, and includes also the goodwill of the business. Unless the contrary intention appears, property and rights and interests in property, acquired with money belonging to the firm are deemed to have been acquired for the firm.
6. Section 46 of the said Act envisages as under: - "On the dissolution of a firm .Every partner or his representative is entitled, as against all the other partners of their representatives, to have the property of the firm; and to have the surplus distributed among the partners or their representatives according to their rights."
7. In the instant case, the prayer was made to the Collector/Settlement Officer for entry of the names in the Revenue Record qua the property left by the deceased of the said firm, It is settled law that the property on the dissolution of a firm shall be devolved upon all other partners of the firm or his representatives. The determination of the partners of the firm is not the function of the revenue hierarchy. This issue can be adjudicated/resolved .By some other forum other than the Revenue Officers. The Collector as well as the M.B.R have validly/legally passed the orders observing that it is not the job of the revenue department to determine the name of successors of the deceased partners of the firm Fazal Din and Sons, It is the. Exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Court to adjudicate upon the intricate question of law and facts.
8. Another aspect Of the case is that-question of fact is involved in the matter which require recording of evidence and examination of record and the High Court would not interfere in such like matters in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction as laid down in the case of Benedict F.D.
Souza v, Karachi Building Control Authority and three others (1989 SGMR 918), Federation of Pakistan and two others v. Major (Rtd.) Muhammad Sabir Khan (P.LD 1991 S.C. 476), and Muhammad Younas Khan v. Government of N.W.F.P, through Secretary and others (1993 SCM R 618). Learned counsel for the petitioner has miserably failed to make out a case for interference in the impugned order.
9. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition being devoid of any force is dismissed in limine.