Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1994 CLC 225

MUHAMMAD ALI And ANOTHER vs JAN MUHAMMAD And OTHER

Citation1994 CLC 225
CourtBoard of Revenue
Case No.L.O.R. No. 403 of 1991
Date1992-08-30
Judge(s)Ch. Talib Hussain
ResultOrder accordingly

ORDER

Precisely, on the death of Sardar Ahmad his inheritance was mutated in favour of his widow Mst.

Maryam Begum respondent No3. That order was challenged by respondents Nos.l and 2 on the ground that Mst. Maryam Begum was not the sole heir of last incumbent. They were also entitled to get share from the inheritance of the deceased being his cousins. The AC/Collector remanded the case on 25-2-1990 and Revenue Officer was directed to sanction mutation afresh in accordance with law. On remand, the AC-I/Tehsildar vide order dated 26-3-1990 sanctioned mutation in a manner that Mst. Maryam Begum was given 1/4 share and respondents 1 and 2 weregiven remaining 3/4 share as residuaries. The present petitioners claiming to be purchasers of the suit land filed civil suit challenging mutation passed in favour of Mst. Maryam Begum and obtained a declaratory decree. During the proceedings of the suit the respondents Nos.l and 2 presented an application for impleading them as party to the suit which was rejected. Therefore, they went in appeal before the District Judge but failed. Thereupon respondents 1 and 2 filed an application under section 12 (2) of C.P.C. before the Civil Court in which status quo order has been issued. The petitioners then filed an appeal before the AC/Collector, Khanewal against the sanction of Mutation No.727 who vide order dated 16-5-1990 accepted the same and directed the Revenue Officer to sanction the mutation in terms of decree passed by Civil Court. That order was assailed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) who vide order dated 15-11-1990 accepted the same and re-instated the order of mutation dated 26-3-1992.

Hence this revision petition.

2. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned orders. Both the parties have stated at the bar that they have no objection if the instant revision petition is disposed of in a manner that possession of the parties is not disturbed and the mutation already sanctioned will not be affected till the decision of the Civil Court. The prayer of the parties is acceded to and orders accordingly.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch