WALI MUHAMMAD versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF

Section 77 (3) (h), (i) and 114 (2) (a), (b) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, jurisdiction of the Revenue Courts Civil Courts, dismissing the civil suit for joint possession against the defendants. Doing so, some are accused of being a tenant. In a dispute in which the terms and conditions have been intended to be paid to the landlord's land in accordance with the terms and conditions of the tenancy, the subject of the suit falls under the provisions of section 77, section (77 ()). , Attracted by the prohibitions contained in CL (A) and (B), and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court excluded my facts. The Revenue Appeal Court observed in its judgment that it had settled the issue in section 114 ( 2) will refrain from disconnecting under (a) or (b) because no matter was settled in this case or not. In fact, the talk was being given to the landlords or not, and the landlords could seek treatment in a proper court, be held, could not grant jurisdiction to the civil court.

P L D 1976 Lahore 346

Before Mushtaq Hussain, J

WALI MUHAMMAD ETC. Appellants

versus

MUHAMMAD SHARIF ETC.-Respondents

Regular Second Appeal No. 844 of 1966, heard on 20th January 1976..

Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887)-

--Ss. 77(3)(h), (i) & 114(2)(a), (b)-Revenue Courts-Civil Courts- Jurisdiction, ouster of-Civil suit for joint possession against defen dants, some alleged to be occupancy tenants of land in dispute whose terms and conditions of tenancy envisaged payment to land lords of half share of produce-Subject-matter of suits, held fell within provisions of S. 77, attracted prohibition contained in S. 77(3), cls. (a) & (b) and jurisdiction of civil Court ousted-Mere fact of' Revenue Appellate Court having observed in his judgment that he would refrain from holding that subject-matter of case fell within S. 114(2)(a) or (b) because no issue had been framed whether batai in fact was or was not being paid to landlords and landlords could seek remedy in proper Court, held, could not confer jurisdiction upon civil Court.-[Jurisdiction].

M. Z. Khalil for Appellants.

Raja Abdul Razzaq for Respondents Nos. 1 to 5.

Nemo for the Remaining Respondents.

Date of hearing : 20th January 1976.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer

Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad

property advocate from Zhob lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes

👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.

Lawyers Directory Listing

Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team