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.
Civil Revisions Nos. 775 and 1186 of 1983, decided on 11th July, 1983.
‑‑ S. 115‑Revision ‑Dispute about possession of tractor owned jointly‑Trial Court granting application of respondents and issuing directions to petitioners not to transfer tractor to third person pending suit or take forcible possession of same‑Appellate Court, partly accepting appeal ordering that tractor be kept at police station‑Held, since it is yet to be established by petitioner that possession of tractor taken by respondent forcibly or through illegal means, appellate Court could not deprive respondent of possession of tractor‑Order of Appellate Court set aside and that of trial Court restored.
Ch. Muhammad Abdul Saleem for Petitioners.
Syed Sajjad Raza Jafri for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 11th July, 1983.
These are two Civil revisions, bearing Nos. 775 and 1186, both of 1983 calling in question the legality of the order dated 4th April, 1983 of the Additional District Judge, Sargodha.
2. The dispute between the parties is about the possession of a tractor. It was purchased through the loan facility provided by the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan. It stands registered in the name of the Bank. The loan was obtained by the petitioners in Civil Revision No. 775 of 1983, namely, Ata Muhammad, Mst. Siddiqan, Mst. Rehmat and Mst. Asghari, hereinafter referred to as the petitioners. It may be mentioned that Ata Muhammad is the son of Mst. Siddiqan who is a widow while Mst. Rehmat and Mst. Asghari are his sisters. The tractor is non‑transferable.
3. The price of the tractor was Rs. 88,268. Out of it a sum of Rs. 40,400 was provided by the bank. To secure this loan the petitioners pledged their property with the bank. A further sum of Rs. 44,000' was raised by them after obtaining a loan of Rs. 44,600 from Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Aslam, petitioners in Civil Revision No. 1186 of 1983, hereinafter referred to as the respondents. Ata Muhammad executed a deed in favour of respondents wherein apart from admitting the receipt of loan he stated that the ownership of the tractor belonged in half to the respondents. Apparently after the purchase of the tractor its possession was taken over by the respondents.
4. On 20th December, 1983 the respondents instituted a suit against the petitioners inter alia for a declaration to the effect that they owned a half share in the tractor. Together with the suit they also moved an application praying that during the pendency of the suit the petitioners should be directed not to transfer the tractor to a third person or take away forcibly possession of the same. This application was allowed by the learned trial Judge. From the order of the learned trial Judge, the petitioners went in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge. In the appeal they prayed that during the pendency of the suit, the tractor be detained in Court or handed over to a receiver. The learned Additional District Judge partly accepted the appeal and directed that the possession of the tractor be taken over from the respondents and kept at police station Bhalwal. From the order of the learned Additional District Judge, both parties have come in revision to this Court.
5. It is the position of both parties that keeping tine tractor at the police station is going to serve no purpose and will be against their interest I am inclined to agree with this for by allowing the tractor to remain at the police station its engine and other parts are likely to rust and deteriorate. Apparently the learned Additional District Judge did' not take into consideration the fact that a police station is not a garage and that the officer attached thereto will hardly be interested in its proper maintenance. I should therefore think that by keeping the tractor at the police station both parties are likely to suffer.
6. No doubt‑the ownership of the tractor stands in the name of the Agricultural Development Bank and that the petitioners have pledged their property with it but it is also to be noticed that a fairly large amount of the consideration for the purchase of the tractor has been provided by the respondents and that the tractor was in their possession at the time of the institution of the suit. It is yet to be established by the petitioners that the possession of the tractor was taken by the respondents forcibly or through some other illegal mean. The learned Additional District Judge therefore should not have deprived them of the possession of the tractor.
7. It is contended by the petitioners that Ata Muhammad was not competent to enter into any agreement on behalf of his mother and sisters and that his mother and sisters were not bound by the same. It is unneces sary for me to examine this plea at this stage for the reason that prima facie all the petitioners have been benefited by the agreement inasmuch as it was the money provided by the respondents that enabled them‑ to purchase the tractor.
8. For the reasons stated above I set aside the order of the learned Additional District Judge and restore the order passed by the learned trial Court. There will be no order as. to costs in these civil revisions.
M. Y. H. Petition accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer