Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Regular First Appeal No. 143 of 1941, decided on 7th February 1949, from the order of the Senior Sub‑Judge, Mianwali, dated 11th February 1941.
----
--Ala maliks‑Ala maliks are the descendants of the original founder, and they were really proprietors of all lands situated within the village‑They are the sole owners of the Shamilat deh.
The descendants of the original founder were first called zamindars and later styled as ala maliks.
A perusal of the earliest documents prepared at the first regular settlement would lead to the inference that the ala maliks of the village, i.e., the descendants of the founder were really the proprietors of all lands situated within the limits of the villages fixed by the Government.
-----
---‑Shamilat Deh‑Adna maliks‑Adna maliks are persons other than ala maliks having proprietary rights over lands in their possession.
The persons other than the descendants of the founder, came to be known as the adna maliks of the lands in their possession or under their cultivation.
The adna maliks could not extend their proprietary rights beyond the lands actually brought under cultivation by them.
----
---Shamilat Deh‑Tirniguzars‑They are now pro prietors having rights of grazing.
It will follow from the above that the tirniguzars did possess some rights over the shamilat deh but the extent of their rights was left for determination to the officer partitioning the property.
The tirniguzars were allowed rights of grazing but that is quite different from claiming a share at the time of the partition of the shamilat. Shamilat. Their rights were to be protected by reserving a sufficient area of land for their purposes by the Revenue Officer.
---
‑Shamilat deh‑Operation of Sind Sagar Act, 1902 --Shamilat brought under cultivation does not cease to be shamilat.
During the 28 years of the operation of the Sind Sagar Act no rights, proprietary or occupancy could be acquired either by the ala malik or by any other person in the land reclaimed by them. In other words, the portions of the shamilat brought under cultivation during this prohibited period would not cease to be the shamilat deh and continue to remain the property of those to whom the shamilat belonged.
A I R 1936 Lah. 779 ; A I R 1936 Lah. 958 ; A I R 1936 Lah. 962 ; A I R 1941 P C 34 referred to.
S. 112‑Grazing ground can be protected.
The Punjab Land Revenue Act makes ample provision for the protection of the grazing ground and other common rights. Under section 112 of the Act the partition of certain properties enumerated therein may be refused if in the opinion of the Revenue Officer it. is likely to cause inconvenience to the co‑sharers or other persons directly or indirectly interested therein or to diminish the utility thereof to those persons.
S. 111‑Partition of shamilat.
Cultivated lands could be partitioned without any hindrance between the owners thereof, but the land which was still lying waste could only be partitioned, subject to the grazing rights of the people and at the discretion of the officer to whom the application for partition was made.
It might be recalled that all the classes of persons interested directly or indirectly in the enjoyment of the shamilat deh did not object to the partition. As mentioned above in their pleas, they simply demanded the allotment of the shamilat area to themselves to the exclusion of others. If all the parties interested demanded a partition, the condition of impartibility could not be imposed upon them against their will. The tirniguzars for whose benefit the provision was entered in the last wajib‑ul‑arz, could maintain that sufficient area be left out for their use.
The tirniguzars, therefore, could not legitimately object to the partition of the shamilat but they could rightly insist upon keeping intact sufficient portions for the use of the inhabitants and their cattle. This is what is really meant by the wajib‑ul‑arz of 1923‑24.
The land which had been cultivated without any just right and in spite of the prohibition contained in the Sind Sagar Act and in which no adna malkiat rights could be acquired, could not be partitioned.
Ghulam Mohy‑ud‑Din, Akbar Ali and Karam Ali for Appellants.
Dr. Shuja‑ud‑din, Iftikharul‑Haq and Sheikh Muhammad Amin for Respondents.
This judgment shall decide Regular First Appeal Nos. 143 and 144 of 1941. These two appealed are by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the learned Senior Sub-Judge Mianwali, dated the 11th February, 1941, by which he dismissed the suits. The dispute relates to the partition of extensive shamilat areas in two villages of Hetu and Tinda Thal in Tahsil Bhakkar of District Mianwali. The plaintiffs‑appellants are ale maliks who claimed to be the sole owners of the shamilat in question and sued for partition. This is the third time that this case has come up to the High Court and during its long course of 19 years it had had a chequered career. On 4th January, 1930 some adna maliks and tirniguzars applied to the Revenue Officer for partition of the shamilat. Some of the adna maliks opposed it on the ground that neither adna maliks nor the tiniguzars had any share or right in the shamilat. The proceedings before the Revenue Officer continued for several months when the counsel for adna maliks and tirniguzars stated that they did not want the shamilat to be partitioned and that the proceedings might be consigned to the ‑record‑room. Taro of the sale maliks, however, opposed this course and prayed that under section 114 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act they may be made applicants and that the proceedings for partition might continue. The Revenue Officer acceded to this and on 8th December, 1930 made an order' that as a question of title was involved it could only be determined by a Civil Court. Accordingly on 5th January, 1931, two of the ale maliks presented a formal plaint claiming a declaration that they and other ale maliks alone were owners of the shamilat and that the adna maliks and tirniguzars had no concern with it, As there were numerous defendants, an application under O. 1, r. 8. Civil Procedure Code was made to carry on the suit in a representative capacity and some of the defendants were made to represent the different groups of the defendants before the Court. The Revenue Officer decreed the suit in part and granted a declaration defining the right of adna malik and ale maliks respectively in the shamilat and further held that the tirniguzars had no share in it.
Three appeals were preferred to this Court. When these appeals came up for hearing, it was discovered that the procedure laid down in O. 1, r. 8, had not been followed; that the interests of the persons appointed to represent each class were adverse to those whom they purported to represent and there were various other defects of vital character and that there had been no proper trial of the case. The appeals were accepted. All proceedings before the Revenue Officer (acting as a Subordinate judge) after the institution of the plaint were quashed and the case was remanded for do novo trial by the Senior Sub‑Judge, Mianwali. This order was made on 12th December, 1935, in C. A. No. 1327 of 1932.
After remand the plaintiffs presented an application under O. 1, r. 8, classifying the defendants into five categories A to E in. which the names and particulars of ‑persons‑ of each class were given in detail and it was prayed that they be treated as defendants in the suit representing, the various groups and permitted to defend .the suit on their behalf and that notice of the application might be served by proclamation on the persons mentioned in the various lists. This was done. Some persons subsequently presented an application under sub‑rule (2) of rule 8, Civil Procedure Code that they should be impleaded as defendants in their own individual capacity. This was also granted. The amended plaint was filed on 20th December, 1936.
The various defendants filed separate written statements denying the plaintiffs' claim to partition and each of them claiming the right to himself. On 31st Mach, 1937, it was, however, discovered that On the record who had been appointed as one of the representatives of the tirniguzars had died on 21st December, 1936 and that no application was made to bring his‑ legal representatives on the record. It was ‑also pointed out by the counsel for the adna maliks that some persons who had been included in the lists of persons interested as filed with the original plaint on the 5th January, 1931, had been omitted from the lists annexed to the amended plaint presented on, 20th December, 1936. The plaintiffs counsel stated that he had no objection to these persons being added as defendants. Their names were, therefore, added. It was then found out that three of them had died before the amended plaint had been presented. Their names were struck off and the remaining four, Ghulam Rasul, son of Kaura, Ghulam Hussain, son of Ghulam Muhammad, Janu, son of Fateh and Jiwan, son of Nura were added as defendants on 31st March, 1937. After this‑ had been done, the defendants raised another objection that these persons had been impleaded more than six years after the Revenue Officer had directed the plaintiffs to file a suit in a Civil Court to establish their title and the suit was, therefore, said to be barred by limitation and as the suit for partition was one and indivisible it could not proceed against the other persons as well. On this the Court framed some preliminary issues and ultimately on 25th May, 1937, dismissed the suit as having abated on account of the death of some of the defendants.
The plaintiffs came to this Court second time. It was held that these persons were not among those who had been appointed by the Court to defend the suit under O. 1, r. 8, Civil Procedure Code on behalf of any of the five groups of persons mentioned above, nor had they applied under sub‑rule (2) of rule 8 to be impleaded as defendants in their own names. They were, therefore, not " parties " to the suit in the real sense of the term and their absence from the record could not affect the result of the litigation. It was also pointed out that the four persons who were allowed to be impleaded as defendants at their own request were really unnecessary and they too were not parties in the real sense of the term: As a result of these findings. by order dated 22nd June, 1939, Regular First Appeal No. 287 of 1937, was accepted and the judgment and decree of the Senior Sub‑Judge were reversed and the case was remanded for disposal in accordance with law.
After this second remand the case was tried by the learned Senior Sub‑Judge, Mianwali, and on the dismissal of the suit by him, the plaintiffs have now come up to this Court for the third time.
In the amended plaint it was alleged that the shamilat land belonged to the ala maliks in proportion to the shares entered in the revenue papers and that the adna maliks and tirniguzars had no share in the shamilat area. The defendants were classed into five categories
(a) dana maliks ; (b) ala and adna maliks ; (c) ala maliks ; (d) tirni guzars and (e) ala maliks having identical interest with the plaintiffs but who did not choose to join them in the plaint.
The group (a) adna maliks pleaded that the ala maliks had no right to partition the shamilat but that it belonged to them only. The group (b) of ala and adna maliks maintained that the partition should be effected among adna maliks and the ala maliks who had reclaimed the land, and had also acquired the rights of adna maliks. It was then said that if in any case, the partition was not made among adna maliks it might be made among the ala maliks. Their main contention, how ever, was that the adna maliks were entitled to the shamilat land and it should be partitioned in proportion to the adna milkiat, failing that, in proportion to the ala milkiat. The tirniguzars were stated to have no right. The group (c) represented some of the ala maliks who were said to have reclaimed land in village Hetu of the area of 17,000 kanals and constructed houses and wells and had spent vast sums of money for the purpose. The area brought by them under cultivation could not be considered a part of the shamilat land to be partitioned. As to the rest of the shamilat it could only be divided among the ala maliks and nobody else had any share in it. The group (d) comprised the tirniguzars who asserted that ala and adna proprietors had no connection with the shamilat which belonged to them and among whom it should be partitioned.
The trial Court framed as many as 19 issues but dismissed the suit on issue No. 1 only and did not think it necessary to go into the others. Some of the issues did not properly arise in the case and the scope of the suit seems to have been misconstrued. This aspect shall be dealt within its proper place.
A preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that two of the defendants had died long ago and their representatives were not‑ properly brought on the record. One of them was Mst. Sabhai who was impleaded on the death of Muhammad Hussain, son of Ghulam Muhammad and the other was 6hulam Hussain, brother of Muhammad Hussain. The former died on 7th April 1943 and the application to implead her representatives was not made till 29th July 1943. The latter died on 1st March 1945 but the application to bring his representatives on the record was not made till 3rd February 1947. Both these respondents are the persons who were not really necessary parties as held by this Court on 22nd June 1939 which has been referred to above. As a matter of fact, Ghulam Hussain is the same person who was said to have been impleaded as a defendant more than six years after the date when the Revenue Officer directed the plaintiffs to bring their suit to have the question of title decided. The remarks made in the judgment of 22nd June 1939, word for word apply to the case of these two respondent. and Ghulam Hussain anal his brother Muhammad Hussain were made defendants on 25th February, 1937 at the request of the counsel for tire defendants but they were not really necessary parties and their presence or absence from the record was immaterial for the purposes of the decision of the case. The preliminary objection therefore, has no force and is hereby repelled.
The initation of partition proceedings for the first time in 1930 vitas not without meaning. In the beginning of 20th century the Government of the Punjab prepared a scheme to make a canal in the Sind Sagat Doab for the purpose of irrigating tracts of waste land lying within the limits of the Mianwail, Shahpur, Muzaffargrah and Jhang districts respectively commonly known as the Sind‑Sagar Doab. In pursuance of this scheme the Sind‑Sagar Doab Colonization Act was passed in 1902. Amongst other provisions it empowered the Government to make agreements between proprietors in the districts for the surrender of their lands to Government on condition that they would receive back an area equal to one‑fourth in the improved land. Such surrenders however, were only to take effect on and from the date on which the excavation of the proposed canal should be begun. The Act received the assent of the Lieutenant‑Governor to 1901: Agreements were entered into by the proprietors of all the lands in the villages in question for the surrender of the lands on the statutory terms The agreement contained the term that from the date of the agreement up to the date of the surrender, no one should, notwith standing, any law or custom to the contrary, acquire or be considered entitled to either proprietary or occupancy tenancy rights in the said lands. The agreement was with the Government but at the second regular settlement in 1902 the Wajib‑ul‑arz in each of the villages comprised in these districts, records the agreement between the villagers in this form :‑‑
We the proprietors of the village have signed the agreement under the Sind‑Sagar Doab Act I of 1902 . No one can acquire proprietary rights in the village shamilat till then."
The same agreement was repeated in the wajib‑ul‑arz prepared in the third regular settlement which in Mianwali district took place in tile year 1923‑24. The project of the canal, however, was never carried into effect. The excavation was never begun and in 1929 when the scheme had been finally abandoned, the Sind‑Sagar Act of 1902 was repealed (Act VI of 1929). On the repeal of the Sind‑Sagar Act of 1902, the rights which were held by the owners in the shamilat, were believed to have revived. It was at this stage that an attempt was made on the part of some of the adna inaliks to partition the shamilat which has led to present litigation as mentioned above.
It was agreed that the terms and conditions of ala and adna milkiat vary from village to village and that for the proper decision of their respective rights, the wajib‑ul‑arz of the villages must be looked to. The decided cases of other places might prove of some assistance but they could not act as safe guides for the proper determination of these appeals.
Both Hetu and Tinda Thai villages were founded by Hetu, the common ancestor of the ala maliks and the former was named after him. Their characteristics are the same and for our purposes it shall suffice to make a detailed reference to one out of them. Exh. P. 8 gives the history of the foundation of village Hetu as recorded in the first regular settlement of 1878. The salient portions are reproduced below:
"Formerly this area was lying a desolate jungle. Five generations i.e 150 years ago, Hetu ancestor of the ala proprietors come from village Paniala, Tehsil Dera Ismail Khan and acquired ownership by making this village abad. Subsequently he, who wanted to sink a well, got the site approved by the said ancestor or his descendant and sank a well either on payment of tappa lagwai dues or ihsanan (gratis) and also took possession gratis, by reclamation of the bangar land wherever he liked with permission of the ancestor. In this way the persons sinking a well acquired owner ship of the area attached thereto and the occupants of the barani land acquired ownership of the land in their possession. The remaining ghair abad area was considered a shamilat deh but no pukhta (permanent) boundary of the ghair abad land was mixed. During the present Settlement, by order, dated the 31st March 1876, of the Assistant Settlement Officer, the present ghair abad area was granted for the grazing of cattle and a boundary of the village was fixed. Before the advent of the British rule the descendants of Hetu ancestor were known as zamindars and all the other occupants of wells and barani land as tenants. The zamindars used to receive from the tenants one pat per path of grain out of the entire produce. During the previous summary Settlement the zamindars were declared as ala proprietors and the tenants as adna proprietors of their respective possessions. The rate of taluqadari due was fixed at Rs. 1‑12‑0 per cent, of the net land revenue instead of one pat per path of grain. Hence the tenure of this village with due regard to the proprietary possession of the ala proprietors is. zamindari bilij mal and with due regard to the possession of the adna proprietors it is ‑incom plete bhayyah chara."
The above account would reveal that the original ownership of the village was acquired by Hetu by the very fact of possession and found ations. The wells could be sunk by any person with or without payment of the dues, of course, with the approval of the owners and possession of the barani land could be taken by mere reclamation. The persons sinking the wells acquired the ownership of the area attached to it and similarly the persons bringing under cultivation acquired the ownership of the land so reclaimed within the boundary fixed by the Assistant Settlement Officer in 1876. The area which at the time of the first settlement of 1878 was not so occupied or possessed, was known as the ghair abad area called the shamilat deh. The descendants of the original founder were first called zamindars and later styled as ala maliks. The rate of their ala rights was fixed at Rs, 1‑12 0 instead of a share in the produce. The persons other than the descendants of the founder, came to be known as the adan maliks of the lands in their possession or under their cultivation.
The wajib‑ul‑arz which regards the agreements of the villagers was also prepared in 1878. The rights in the land attached to a well and the cultivated banjar land were reiterated and all the persons who had sunk wells or cultivated some land were granted proprietary rights of adna milkiat. As to the future it was agreed that where a new well was to be sunk the ala maliks would have the first right and the adna milks would come next. If an adna Malik refused to sink a well, it was open to a superior proprietor to bring one from outside but in order to safeguard the rights of the adna maliks in the village, the previous permission of the district authorities was made necessary.
The conditions under which partition of the property could be effected, were also specified in paragraph 10 of the wajib‑ul‑arz. It was noted that the proprietors of the cultivated or uncultivated land shown as their exclusive property in the khewat khatauni papers, are competent to partition it according to their fixed shares at any time they like. But ghair abad shamilat land will not be partitioned, because if it is parti tioned, there will be inconvenience regarding the grazing of cattle and the people who do not own land in the village but are otherwise entitled to grazing cattle on the ground of their being residents of that village, will be materially prejudiced thereby. However, if any person files are applica tion for partition, and the officer to whom the application is presented considers such partition to be in the interests of justice for any reason, the said officer will be competent to pass an order for the partition.
It would be evident from the above that cultivated lands could be partitioned without any hindrance between the owners thereof, but the land which with still lying waste could only be partitioned subject to the grazing rights of the people and at the discretion of the officer to whom the application for partition was made.
The grazing rights too were defined in Paragraph 9. It was men tioned that the camels could roam at large without the payment of any dues and as to the other cattle they could graze freely irrespective of the limits of village grazing dues, however, could be recovered form the village to which the proprietors of such cattle originally belonged. But it was open to the proprietors to graze their cattle within the limits of their village and to prevent the grazing of the cattle of another village or to fix grazing dues if they so desired.
The rights of the tirniguzars were dealt with in the order of 13th July, 1878 passed by the Settlement Officer. It was mentioned that the Government had acknowledged the exclusive property of the inhabitants of the village and if any partition was made, the‑tirniguzar too, would be entitled to a share in the shamilat area irrespective of the fact whether they owned cultivated lands or not. The measure will be determined at the time of the institution of the suit by the Revenue Court unless the parties agreed otherwise.
It will follow from the above that the tirniguzars did possess some rights over the shamilat deh but the extent of their rights was left fort determination to the officer partitioning the property.
A perusal of the earliest documents prepared at the first regular settlement would lead to the inference that the ala maliks of the village i.e., the descendants of the founder were really the proprietors of all lands situated within the limits of the village fixed by the Government. To the extent that some land was brought under cultivation in accord ance with the provisions of the wajib‑ul-arz, the shamilat deh would be reduced but as to the portion still unoccupied, it would continue to be the property of the real owners. The real owners could be deprived of the ownership by surrender, transfer or any other mode recognized by law. The adna maliks could not extend their proprietary rights beyond the lands actually brought under cultivation by them. The tirniguzars were allowed rights of grazing but that is quite different from claiming a share at the time of the partition of the shamilat. Their rights were to be protected by reserving a sufficient area of land for their purposes by the revenue officer.
The project of the excavation of a canal from the Indus through the Sind‑Sagar Doab was finalized in the year 1900 and the Act was passed as already mentioned above in the year 1902. In order to avoid complica tions as to the rights of the several persons who might choose to bring more and more land under cultivation, an agreement was concluded with the Government that notwithstanding any law or custom to the contrary, no rights proprietory or occupancy, would be acquired in the portions so reclaimed. This agreement was later recorded in the village wajib‑ul‑arz at the time of the second regular settlement of 1902 and the same condi tions as to prohibition of any rights in the newly broken up land were repeated. This document is not on the file. The third regular settlement took place about the year 1924 and as the Sind‑Sagar Act was still in operation, the old agreement was again embodied in the wajib‑ul-arz prepared at the time. It was also stated that as the shamilat area has been left very small, no person shall, in future be competent to reclaim any other plot of the shamilat land and the whole‑of the remaining area shall be reserved for grazing purposes. The prior right of the ala Malik to sink a well was also recognized and after him the adna Malik could do so and failing that the ala malik could allow an outsider to sink a new well but that would not be permitted if the grazing rights were adversely affected or the new well would obstruct the flow of rain water into the existing well. These objections, if so raised, were presumably to be settled by the district authorities.
The wajib‑ul‑arzes prepared at the successive second and third settlements did not in any way destroy the ownership rights of the ala maliks in the land still lying waste, though contain restrictions were placed as to further reclamation. It was up to the adna maliks or the tirniguzars to establish that the ala maliks had been in any way deprived of their undoubted rights in the shamilat land. It is not disputed that the adna maliks would enjoy their rights of exclusive possession over the lands under their cultivation and the tirniguzars should also have sufficient land left for them for their requirements of pasturage. But both these classes of persons never acquired any specific share in the shamilat on the partition of which, they could have it separated.
The agreement with the Government followed by the enforcement of the Sind‑Sagar Act effected a drastic change in the village economy. It interdicted the acquisition of the adna milkiat rights during the time that the agreement was in force (A I R 1936 Lah. 958) deals with the case of ala and adna maliks who broke up portions of the shamilat between the years 1902 and 1929 when the Sind‑Sagar Act held the field. It was held that the reclamation of land during this period could not result in the acquisition of any adna milkiat rights at any time. The same view was affirmed in (A I R 1936 Lah. 962) and (A I R1936 Lah. 779). One of such like cases was taken to the Privy Council and the view taken by this Court was approved by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Malik Muhammad Ikhtiar, etc. v. Himtu Ram etc. This judgment is reported as (A I R 1941 P.C.34). These judicial decisions would, there fore, leave no room for doubt whatsoever that during the 28 years of the operation of the Sind‑Sagar Act no rights proprietary or occupancy could be acquired either by the ala malik, or by any other person in the land reclaimed by them. In other words, the portions of the shamilat brought under cultivation during this prohibited period would not cease to be the shamilat deh and continue to remain the property of those to whom the shamilat belonged.
It was not argued before us that the shamilat land in view of the statement in the last wajib‑ul‑arz of 1923‑24 could not be partitioned. We, however, suo moto considered that aspect of the case. It might, be recalled that all the classes of persons interested directly or indirectly in the enjoyment of the shamilat deh did not object to the partition. As mentioned above in their pleas, they simply demanded the allotment of the shamilat areas to themselves to the exclusion of others. If all the parties interested demanded a partition, the condition of impartibility could not be imposed upon them against their will. The tirniguzars for whose benefit the provision was entered in the last wajib‑ul‑arz could maintain that sufficient area be left out for their use. The splitting up of the shamilat even among the tirniguzars only would tend to defeat the very object which it was intended to preserve. The tirniguzars could not make use of the shamilat by appropriating small plots to themselves but could do so only by leaving out a large area of land intact. The tirniguzars, therefore, could not legitimately object to the partition of the shamilat, but they could rightly insist upon keeping intact sufficient portions for the use of the inhabitants and their cattle. This is what is really meant by the wajib‑ul‑arz of 1923‑24. By that time, large areas of land out of the shamilat deh had been cultivated and there was a real danger that if this process continued, there would not be sufficient land left for their use. But this did not mean that the land which had been cultivated without any just right and inspite of the prohibition contained in the Sind‑Sagar‑ Act and in which no adna milkiat rights could be acquired, could not be partitioned.
The Punjab Land Revenue Act makes ample provision for the protection of the grazing ground and other common rights. Under section 112 of the Act, the partition of certain properties enumerated therein may be refused if the opinion of the Revenue Officers it is likely to cause inconvenience to the co‑sharers or other persons directly or indirectly interested therein or to diminish the utility thereof. to those persons when the partition is actually taken in hand this shall be properly kept in view by the Revenue, Officer.
To sum up, the conclusions are as follows: The ala maliks are the sole owners of the shamilat deh. The adna malik, are the owners of the lands in their possession and under their cultivation. After, the agreement in view of the canal project in the Sind‑Sagar Doab no adna milkiat rights could be acquired by any one, be he an ala malik' or an adna malik or any one else by breaking up shamilat land or by sinking wells. The area so cultivated would not cease to be a part of the shamilat deh, if it was so at the time of the agreements referred to above. The tirniguzars are not co‑shares in the shamilat and can claim no share on its partition but they must have sufficient area reserved for grazing purposes and its extent shall be determined by the Revenue Officer at the time of the partition. In a suit for a declaration of rights, it is not necessary to work out the areas in which adna milkiat rights, have been lawfully acquired and the decision of the other issues is out side the purview of the suit as laid by the plaintiffs.
The result is that the Regular First Appeals Nos. 143 and 144 of 1941 are accepted. As all the parties to the dispute had some sort of right, it is not a fit case in which one should be directed to pay the costs of the other. The parties are to bear their own costs throughout.
K. M. A. Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer