Find a Lawyer

AUQAF DEPARTMENT, PUNJAB THROUGH CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR AUQAF, LAHORE versus SIKINA BIBI

Sections 7 and 11 of the Specific Relief Act (of 1877), the claimant's suit under section 42 of the jurisdiction of the claimant's civil court, was that the house in the dispute was his ancestral property which, after his death, the department had originally owned. Was inherited from Challenging the jurisdiction of the plaintiff and the civil court, it has been stated that there is no jurisdiction over the matter as per section 11 of the Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979, both the trial court and the appellate court. Had simultaneously rejected the jurisdiction of the litigation / civil court. The Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance would be banned under section 11 of the 1979 Act when under the provisions of the ordinance, the apex department declared it to be occupied by the property, but the department did not seize so much property under the circumstances. Had jurisdiction over. The Appellate Court below accepted the findings of the trial court for review of this matter and did not disclose that the property under dispute had not been disclosed under the notification under which the property was taken over by the Department. So far both courts have been occupied, in the circumstances, the court correctly ruled the jurisdiction of the appropriate court to exercise and disturb the conclusions of the lower courts. The revising powers under Section 115, CPC, may not disturb them in the absence of any weakness or illegal action in such results. ask a advocate free from Swat lawyer