Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.43 of 1981, decided on 20th August, 1984.

(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 29‑11‑1980 in Review Petition No.154 of 1980).

‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Transfer of property‑‑High Court refusing to interfere with division of property in its Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑No law or any principle having been contravened, leave to appeal refused by Supreme Court.

Malik Shaukat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 20th August, 1984.

‑‑ Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 29‑11‑1980 of the Lahore High Court; whereby review application filed by the petitioner which had arisen out of an urban settlement case, was dismissed.

The portion in dispute it seems was, at some stage of protracted litigation between the contesting parties, transferred in favour of the petitioner in accordance with one mode of division. However, subsequently notwithstanding the separate numbering of the component units of the same property it was treated as one building and then transferred after making a division with reference to main numbers i.e., 605 and 606. The petitioner is the transferee of, it is stated a substantial part of the building. Not feeling satisfied upto the High Court which refused to interfere with the division of the property, the petitioner has sought leave to appeal.

Learned counsel has taken us through the relevant documents including the site plan which he considered to be more authentic. After hearing him at some length, we agree with the High Court that the division of the property could not be interfered with in the Constitutional jurisdiction. No law or any principle having been' contravened, we find no force in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed.

M.I. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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