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 No. 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, the petitioner and respondents Nos. 1 & 2 being legal heirs, are {{BLUR PAGE}} entitled the property left Drfhe deceased persons and the same biltransferrefilkialskliKname by, entering their names in the Revenue Recoretteffilither contends that after the death of said -,41)itiatorstheeftotri; thempetitioner became the partners'efrtMfirrtEMsdecialineirs oflhb deceased.ijnoCiat; 34, naVevit lire'eargume tS' 8 the learned -1 10 tALarif_. Counsel 'fa tifq38ilikrfeY lierused thelkic84. G""- pnian _moo e.El-le)k dd griiivasem her :suslyitjlkigtwilicgttogicpp*tierldha401. Fazal & Sonit,i6 94 Partnership A. 1932ptivis. Partnergbip*retAtiop, boAtween persons who have agreed tel- Oley440ApEpids,0 a biginess carried onIRy all or any of thentgigting foirell? ,Persons who hwe entefed into partnership with one another are ,called individually f"partner'cangnspllectively "a firrri';and the name under which rtheir businessAyserried on is gelled the "firm name". (As Itu2lbgg,thelnerg,grjsyndth.41tbettousiness-,pf the firm is still g)oniiming ,ckspikk4fietjd*It qfejhe oriskaln,partners). tAtirArding to -3the Rgiyyvriscuppil %firm gpigtO under the Faiitier,,shipt9440r4yn Lig Ailpersonality distinct frorT6i* fe@rfittkiWA b*djk*efonfzWiyAitivAxa swaratp rit 3imprcliog 41iatiarbi4w9ffriganrrn is bap entity or af.Por@pn "in law" butds. Merely *Ass() ,:individuals.jhoughAfjfm mayKssesks91..Iqe attribfjt@ptof a s personality, it is only a collective dame of, its jperB119Fs, and not a legal person or entity, distinct and separetei3fr9rn the j:Kirtners. In this context reliance can be placed to the-case EgtiMptost:Opiy., Aziz and others (P.L.D.1.,pAl Section'T'.141'd'''the Partnership Act, 1932, enArines that subject to contract PetWeerv-lhe partners, the property of the firm includes all property and rights and interest. In prpperAy .Originally brought into the stock of the fign,ripr. Acquired,- by _purchase or otherwise, by or for the epuivpse and in the ,ftpurse of the,bysiness of the firm, dnd inclkidggi aiso the goodwill of the-.Business. Unless the contrary intention appears, property and rights and interests{{BLUR PAGE}} 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 thd 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 SCM R 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.