Legal Aspects Pertaining to Co-Sharer ( Co-owners /Joint Sharers of Land in Pakistan)
In Pakistan, the concept of co-sharer of land is significant in cases where multiple individuals share ownership of a piece of immovable property. Co-sharers collectively possess a right over the land, and the possession of one co-sharer is considered beneficial for others. This article explores various legal aspects surrounding co-sharers of land, including the rights and remedies available to them in the event of disputes.
Preservation of Co-Sharers’ Rights:
The case of Shahro and others v. Mst. Fatima and others, as cited in PLD 1998 SC 1512 and PLD 2003 Lahore 186, highlights an essential principle that the possession of one co-sharer on the land does not extinguish the title of other co-sharers. If a mutation is attested in favor of some co-sharers, it does not diminish the rights of others. The law emphasizes the co-ownership and protection of the interests of all co-sharers.
Remedy against Co-Sharer in Possession:
A person acquiring possession of immovable property as a co-owner cannot be dispossessed without proper partition and a decree/order of a competent court, as noted in 2002 MLD 434. This underscores the importance of following the due legal process in any attempt to alter or challenge the possession of a co-sharer. It also ensures that the rights of each co-sharer are safeguarded and respected.
Legal Recognition of Co-Sharers as Owners:
The case discussed in PLJ 1997 SC 985 involved a declaration that respondents, being co-sharers, were owners of the land. The suit was initially dismissed, but on appeal, it was decreed in favor of the respondents. The court upheld this decision, emphasizing that co-sharers can be recognized as owners based on proper appraisal of revenue records and evidence. The case highlights the importance of verifying and recognizing co-sharers’ rightful shares in a property.
Challenging Orders Affecting Co-Sharers:
In PLJ 1994 SC 265, a challenge was made to orders affecting the shares of co-sharers. The court stressed the need for clarity and explanation regarding any changes in co-sharers’ shares and emphasized the importance of properly determining each share-holder’s extent of ownership. The case highlights the necessity of clear and comprehensive documentation in transactions involving co-sharers.
Co-sharers of land in Pakistan hold significant legal rights and protections. Their possession is for the benefit of all co-sharers, and any changes or disputes regarding ownership must be addressed through proper legal channels. The court plays a vital role in upholding the rights of co-sharers and ensuring equitable distribution and recognition of their shares. As the concept of co-sharers is central to land ownership in Pakistan, adherence to legal procedures and documentation is essential to safeguard the interests of all parties involved.
Pre-emption in Land Disputes:
Pre-emption, the right to acquire property in certain circumstances before it is sold to a third party, is a crucial aspect of land disputes in Pakistan. This article delves into two notable cases that shed light on the legal aspects of pre-emption, exploring the rights and remedies available to parties involved.
Case 1: Respondent No.1’s Co-Sharer Rights
In PLJ 1994 Lahore 293, the court dealt with a pre-emption suit in which the disputed property was sold by respondent No.2, who was part of a joint khata (shared landholding). The joint khata was subject to pre-emption, even after its partition through consolidation proceedings. The court clarified that consolidation operations do not disturb pre-existing rights. The respondent No.1, despite not being recorded as a co-owner in revenue records, was deemed a co-owner in the joint khata upon the death of respondent No.2’s husband, which occurred before the sale. The court affirmed the decree in favor of the pre-emptor, establishing the significance of pre-existing rights and the enforceability of pre-emption claims.
Case 2: Suit for Possession by Predecessor-in-Interest
The PLJ 1996 SC (AJK) 165 case involved a suit for possession filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. The trial court decreed the suit, but the first appellate court dismissed it on the grounds of not impleading other co-sharers as defendants. The High Court set aside the dismissal order, recognizing that the suit land was undivided property, and the predecessor-in-interest had alienated his undivided share based on gift deeds and sale-deeds. The court concluded that the proper course of action would have been to grant a decree for joint possession in favor of the predecessor-in-interest. This case highlights the importance of recognizing undivided property rights and the necessity of granting appropriate remedies to the parties involved.
Pre-emption remains a significant legal aspect in land disputes in Pakistan. These cases demonstrate the courts’ stance on protecting pre-existing co-sharer rights and recognizing undivided property interests. Proper documentation and adherence to legal procedures are crucial in land transactions involving co-sharers. The concept of pre-emption serves to uphold the rights of parties and ensures equitable distribution of property. As seen in the cases discussed, the courts play a vital role in interpreting and enforcing pre-emption laws, providing remedies, and maintaining justice in land-related disputes.
Costs and Jurisdiction in Land Disputes
In land disputes, the imposition of costs and the exercise of jurisdiction by the Rent Controller and High Court play significant roles in shaping the outcome of cases. This article explores three noteworthy cases that shed light on the issue of costs and the jurisdiction of relevant authorities in Pakistan.
Case 1: Ejectment Application and Costs
In PLJ 1994 Lahore 96, the court addressed an ejectment application where the petitioner’s evidence was closed for non-payment of costs. The Rent Controller, though free to devise his own procedure, had no jurisdiction to impose costs while allowing the application for additional evidence. The court held that the part of the order imposing costs was without jurisdiction, rendering it null and void. This case underscores the importance of adhering to the correct legal procedures and the limitations of Rent Controllers’ authority in imposing costs.
Case 2: Suit for Recovery of Money and Exemplary Costs
The PLJ 1996 SC (AJK) 25 case dealt with a suit for recovery of money, where the High Court allowed one opportunity to produce evidence, subject to the payment of exemplary costs. The court purported to exercise this power under Sections 35 and 35-A of the C.P.C., but it was deemed unavailable to the High Court. Under Section 35 C.P.C., only actual costs incurred by a litigant can be awarded, and counsel fee could be allowed upon proper certification by counsel. The court reduced the costs from Rs. 12,000 to Rs. 3,000, emphasizing the need for reasonable and justifiable costs in such cases.
Case 3: Co-Sharer’s Right to Eject Trespasser
In PLJ 1998 Peshawar 166, the court addressed the issue of a co-sharer’s right to evict a trespasser from joint property without involving all co-sharers. The court established that a co-sharer’s interest and possession extend to the entire joint property, giving them the right to evict a trespasser from the entire property without the necessity of involving all co-sharers in the case. This case clarifies the extent of a co-sharer’s rights in joint property disputes.
The issue of costs and jurisdiction plays a crucial role in land disputes in Pakistan. These cases highlight the importance of adhering to the correct legal procedures and exercising jurisdiction within the confines of the law. It is essential for authorities such as Rent Controllers and High Courts to be mindful of their limitations when imposing costs. Additionally, co-sharers’ rights and their ability to evict trespassers from joint property have been clarified, ensuring an equitable resolution of disputes. Proper understanding and application of these legal aspects contribute to fair and just outcomes in land-related matters.
The Significance of Co-Sharers’ Rights in Land Disputes: Legal Insights from Pakistan
Land disputes involving co-sharers can be complex, especially when it comes to partition proceedings and possession rights. This article delves into several key cases that shed light on the significance of co-sharers’ rights in such disputes in Pakistan.
Case 1: Absence in Partition Proceedings and Validity of Orders
In PLJ 2001 Revenue 62, the court addressed the contention that the petitioners’ absence from partition proceedings forfeited their right to question the validity of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (A.C). The court held that the absence of co-sharers from partition proceedings does not absolve the Revenue Officer Halqa from their duty. The A.C’s order allowing partition based on wandas prepared by respondents was found to be legally infirm. The District Collector and Additional Commissioner were in error by upholding such an order, leading to the setting aside of their decisions and remanding the case for fresh consideration.
Case 2: Co-Sharer’s Right to Exchange Land from Joint Khata
In PLJ 2002 Lahore 1335, the court addressed the issue of a co-sharer exchanging land from a joint khata with a stranger. The court clarified that a co-sharer in possession of a portion can transfer that portion, subject to adjusting the rights of other co-sharers during partition. Safeguarding the rights of other co-sharers can be achieved through a decree granting them a declaration that the provisions of the transferee in the lands will be subject to adjustment.
Case 3: Co-Sharers’ Possession and Mutations
In PLJ 2003 Lahore 40 and PLJ 2002 Lahore 1770, the court emphasized that the possession of one co-sharer benefits all co-sharers, and a mutation attested in favor of some co-sharers does not extinguish the title of other co-sharers. Possession of some co-sharers is considered joint and inures for the benefit of all co-sharers, signifying their joint interest in the undivided property.
Case 4: Understanding the Term “Co-Sharer”
In PLJ 2001 Lahore 564, the court clarified the term “co-sharer,” defining it as a person holding an existing joint interest, whether absolute or limited, in an undivided property. A co-sharer, regardless of the extent of their interest in joint property, is a co-owner in every inch of that property to the extent of their share until a partition occurs, which they can rightfully claim.
These cases underscore the significance of co-sharers’ rights in land disputes in Pakistan. The rights and possession of co-sharers are intertwined, and their interests are safeguarded until a partition is duly conducted. Absence in partition proceedings does not absolve the authorities from their responsibilities, and any orders passed must be legally sound. Understanding the term “co-sharer” is essential, as it clarifies the extent of ownership and rights held by individuals in joint property. These legal insights provide valuable guidance in handling land disputes involving co-sharers in Pakistan.
Preserving Co-Sharers’ Rights in Joint Property in Pakistan
Co-sharers’ rights in joint immovable property play a vital role in land-related disputes. This article explores significant legal perspectives from Lahore that highlight the entitlements and limitations of co-sharers concerning possession, alienation, and dispossession in joint property.
Case 1: Co-Sharer’s Exclusive Possession and Alienation
In PLJ 2004 Lahore 971, the court emphasized that a co-sharer in exclusive possession of a specific portion of joint property cannot alienate, transfer, or change it without a regular partition between all co-sharers. This ensures that no co-sharer’s rights are violated, and any change in the nature of property must be subject to a lawful partition.
Case 2: Co-Sharer’s Interest in Joint Property
In PLJ 2003 Lahore 791, the court clarified that a co-sharer is always deemed to be in possession of land jointly owned by all co-sharers. As such, a suit filed by a co-sharer to protect their interest in joint property is not restricted by the provisions of the Specific Relief Act or the Limitation Act. The court rectified the non-suiting of the plaintiff by the trial court and upheld the decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Case 3: Co-Sharers’ Rights and Dispossession
In PLJ 2004 Lahore 369, the court addressed the remedies available to a co-sharer when dispossessed. A co-sharer has two options: (1) filing a suit for separate possession through partition, and (2) invoking the provisions of Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. Both remedies are available to protect their rights in joint property.
Case 4: Co-Sharers’ Entitlement and Character of Land
In PLJ 2004 Lahore 943, the court reaffirmed that each co-sharer is an owner in every part of the joint holdings according to their entitlement. No co-sharer can unilaterally change the character of the land to the exclusion of others without resorting to lawful partition proceedings.
These legal perspectives underscore the significance of preserving co-sharers’ rights in joint property disputes. Co-sharers’ possession and interests are intertwined, and any change or alienation in joint property must be done through lawful partition proceedings. Dispossession of a co-sharer warrants appropriate remedies, and the entitlement of each co-sharer must be respected to avoid any infringement on their rights. These insights provide valuable guidance for resolving co-sharer disputes and protecting their rights in joint immovable property in Lahore.
Preserving Co-Sharers’ Rights in Joint Property
The preservation of co-sharers’ rights in joint property is crucial to maintaining equitable ownership and preventing disputes. This article examines significant landmark cases from Lahore that shed light on the entitlements and remedies available to co-sharers concerning possession, alienation, and partition of joint property.
Case 1: Valid Transfer by Co-Sharer in Exclusive Possession
In PLJ 2003 Lahore 798, the court ruled that a co-sharer in exclusive possession of specific land can validly transfer his share in joint Khata and deliver possession of the land to the vendee. The vendee, being in actual physical possession, had a lawful right to alienate the land to the respondent.
Case 2: Family Arrangement and Debarring Other Co-Sharers
PLJ 2004 Lahore 1732 addressed a situation where specific field numbers were in the possession of a vendor due to a family arrangement. The transfer of such property to the vendee and delivery of possession debars other co-sharers from challenging the sale or reclaiming the possession. However, this right is subject to adjustment at the time of partition.
Case 3: Protection of Possession of Co-Sharers
In PLJ 2003 SC (AJ&K) 17, the court emphasized that co-sharers, to the extent of specific land in their possession, cannot be dispossessed except through proper partition proceedings. The defendants have the option to seek redress through partition, and if they fail to secure any share, the entire gifted land would be handed over to them.
Case 4: Private Partition of Joint Property
PLJ 2003 Lahore 753 dealt with a situation where parties claimed a private partition of joint property. The court held that mere statements of one co-sharer about private partition do not constitute conclusive proof of such partition. Co-sharers remain entitled to get the property partitioned officially.
The landmark cases underscore the significance of co-sharers’ rights in joint property and the need to protect their possession, entitlements, and remedies. Co-sharers’ possession benefits all co-sharers, and mutations in favor of some co-sharers do not extinguish the rights of others. The preservation of co-sharers’ rights requires adherence to proper partition procedures and lawful transfers. These landmark cases serve as essential precedents for resolving co-sharers’ disputes and ensuring fairness in joint property ownership in Lahore.
Have Questions? Get in Touch at [email protected]
A review of recent case law on Co-Ownership/Co-sharing
The law of co-ownership and co-sharing in Pakistan, as elucidated by recent case law, underscores several critical principles that govern the rights and responsibilities of co-owners in shared properties. The following commentary synthesises key judicial interpretations and rulings that shape the contemporary legal landscape in this domain.
In the case of Mst. Farzana Zia v. Mst. Saadia Andaleeb, the Supreme Court delineated the scope of a Release Deed or Relinquishment Deed under Section 25. The substratum of such deeds involves the conveyance of rights, title, or interest in immovable property by legal heirs in joint property. The Court highlighted that these deeds often entail one co-owner renouncing their rights in favour of another legal heir, with or without consideration, as part of family settlements. However, it is imperative that these deeds meticulously detail the date of relinquishment, the purpose, any consideration involved, and the consent of the party renouncing their rights, to preclude future litigation (2024 SCMR 916).
In Khaleelullah v. Muhaim Khan, the Supreme Court addressed the denial of inheritance rights, positing that the cause of action for an heir accrues when their co-sharer in possession denies or threatens to deny their share in inherited property. The Court asserted that an actual denial can occur through fraudulent transactions such as sales or gift deeds, whereas mere annotations in revenue records may constitute a threatened denial (2024 PLD 600).
The Quetta High Court, in Muhammad Dawood v. Khudaidad, examined issues surrounding Shamilat land—communal land shared by landowners in a particular area. The Court ruled that the transfer of Shamilat land into individual names without proper authority was invalid. It underscored the necessity of strong evidence to rebut judicial proceedings, emphasising that mere assertions without documentary proof cannot challenge established judicial findings (2024 CLC 725).
In the case of Afsar Khan v. Mst. Ghulam Bibi, the Peshawar High Court upheld the principle that plotting of land without proper legal authentication does not bar revenue authorities from conducting partition to safeguard the rights of all co-sharers. The Court maintained that a co-sharer with symbolic possession can protect their rights and that the execution of partition should consider the specific circumstances and legal boundaries of the property (2024 MLD 61).
The Peshawar High Court also addressed execution proceedings in Noor Aslam v. Mst. Resham Jan (Widow), where it highlighted the role of the Executing Court in determining the proper location and shares of disputed property. The Court directed the Executing Court to ensure the proper measurement and determination of shares before handing over possession, adhering strictly to the decree’s scope while considering the contiguity of property segments (2024 MLD 36).
In Ghulam Shabbir (deceased) v. Muhammad Nawaz (deceased), the Lahore High Court focused on the right of co-sharers to claim possession through pre-emption, stressing the need for proper inquiry and scrutiny before determining culpability in cases involving allegations of tampered thumb impressions on legal documents. The Court remanded the case for fresh adjudication to ensure fair trial and justice (2024 YLR 789).
Moreover, the Lahore High Court, in Fazal Karim v. Mehboob Khan (Deceased), dealt with the maintainability of a suit for permanent injunction filed by a co-owner. The Court affirmed that every co-sharer is considered an owner in each inch of joint property until partitioned by metes and bounds, and they can seek injunctions to prevent changes to the property’s nature without the consent of all co-owners (2024 CLC 699).
The case of Mst. Kaneez Batool v. Allah Bukhsh reiterated the principle that executing courts cannot go beyond the decree’s scope and that changes in the ownership status of joint property through registered sales cannot undermine the rightful possession established through litigation. The Lahore High Court restored the initial decree favouring the decree-holder, rejecting the notion that execution proceedings should revisit established findings (2024 CLC 630).
The High Court of Azad Kashmir in Jamroz Khan v. Shujat Khan highlighted the significance of accurate property description in injunction suits. The Court restored the trial court’s decision, emphasising the evidentiary support for the plaintiff’s claims of possession and the necessity for judicial clarity in such matters (2024 CLC 381).
In Mohammad Boota (Deceased) v. Mst. Fatima (2023 SCMR 1901), the Supreme Court addressed the issue of inheritance rights and limitations concerning female heirs. The Court established that no limitation period runs against claims involving inheritance rights of female heirs who have been defrauded by their family. The Court ruled that a female heir’s cause of action arises when she is denied her inheritance rights, and no limitation can bar her claim against co-sharers who defraud her. This ruling underscores the protective stance of the judiciary towards vulnerable heirs, particularly women, ensuring they are not deprived of their rightful inheritance.
In Muhammad Aqil v. Muhammad Amir (2023 SCMR 1032), the Supreme Court dealt with a suit for specific performance involving a minor’s share in immovable property. The Court held that a minor’s share cannot be sold by a de facto guardian unless there is clear evidence that the adult co-sharer was appointed as the minor’s guardian. This decision highlights the Court’s emphasis on protecting the interests of minors in co-owned properties, ensuring that their rights are not compromised by unauthorised transactions.
The case of Saadat Khan v. Shahid-ur-Rehman (2023 PLD 362) clarified the criterion for determining the actual denial of a co-sharer’s rights to joint property. The Supreme Court stated that a co-sharer’s right to sue accrues when there is an explicit denial of their rights by another co-sharer. This ruling provides a clear standard for identifying when a co-sharer can initiate legal action to protect their interests in jointly held property.
In Sheikh Ameen-ur-Rasheed v. Shaikh Mamon ur Rasheed (2023 YLR 2683), the Quetta High Court addressed procedural issues in the execution of partition decrees and auction proceedings. The Court invalidated an auction of ancestral property conducted without proper notice to all co-sharers, emphasising the mandatory procedural requirements under the Civil Procedure Code. This case underscores the importance of adhering to due process in executing court orders involving co-owned properties, ensuring transparency and fairness.
The Peshawar High Court, in Zamurad Khan v. Ghulam Rabani (2023 MLD 733), reiterated that co-sharers cannot seek permanent injunctions and possession against each other without first seeking partition. The Court emphasised that disputes between co-sharers over possession must be resolved through partition proceedings, reinforcing the principle that co-owners are entitled to an undivided share of the entire property until legally partitioned.
In Fazal Hadi v. Shah Nazar Khan (2023 CLC 1882), the Peshawar High Court highlighted the necessity of issuing notices to all co-sharers in partition proceedings. The Court set aside decisions by lower forums that dismissed partition applications for not including all co-sharers, reaffirming the statutory duty of revenue officers to notify all recorded co-sharers. This ruling underscores the procedural safeguards designed to ensure that all interested parties are adequately represented in partition actions.
In the case of Lajbar Khan v. Kamin Khan (2023 CLC 690), the Peshawar High Court addressed the enforceability of private partition agreements. The Court held that private partitions could only be upheld if all co-sharers consented; otherwise, official partition proceedings must be conducted. This case illustrates the limitations on enforcing informal agreements among co-owners and the necessity of official partition to resolve disputes.
The Lahore High Court, in Muhammad Yousaf v. Additional District Judge, Ferozewala (2023 PLD 503), dealt with the rights of vendees purchasing property from a co-sharer. The Court affirmed that a vendee steps into the shoes of the vendor co-sharer, inheriting the same rights and limitations until the property is partitioned. This ruling clarifies the legal position of third-party purchasers in co-owned properties, ensuring their rights are aligned with those of the original co-sharer.
In Muhammad Ibrahim v. State (2023 YLR 2691), the Lahore High Court examined the applicability of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, in disputes between co-sharers. The Court held that co-sharers are presumed to be in possession of every part of the joint property, and disputes over possession among co-owners do not typically fall under the Act’s purview. This decision highlights the distinction between co-sharer disputes and cases involving land grabbing or illegal dispossession.
In Syed Muhammad Qasim v. Shamoon (2023 YLR 1940), the Lahore High Court examined the maintainability of a suit for recovery of possession filed by co-sharers under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The court held that co-sharers who have been dispossessed from their property can seek recovery of possession without necessarily filing for partition. This decision underscores that co-sharers have the right to reclaim possession through specific legal remedies, even while holding undivided shares in the property.
The case of Mehmood Idrees v. Khalid Hussain (2023 YLR 1362) dealt with mesne profits and the question of title in partition suits under Sections 7 and 8 of the Punjab Partition of Immovable Property Act, 2012. The Lahore High Court affirmed that trial courts have the discretion to determine interim mesne profits at the first hearing, pending adjudication of the suit. This ruling highlights the court’s role in protecting the financial interests of co-sharers not in possession during the pendency of partition proceedings, ensuring equitable treatment.
In Ghulam Hussain v. Rent Controller, Gujranwala (2023 YLR 820), the Lahore High Court addressed the setting aside of an ex-parte eviction order involving co-sharers. The court emphasised the importance of proper service of summons and due process, especially when one of the co-sharers remains unaware of the proceedings. This case reinforces the procedural safeguards necessary to ensure fair adjudication in disputes involving multiple co-sharers.
The Lahore High Court in Mistary Shahid Karim v. Additional District Judge (2023 CLC 2140) reiterated the principle of estoppel in ejectment proceedings, stating that a tenant who becomes a co-owner through purchase continues to be a tenant until the tenancy is expressly terminated or possession is surrendered. The ruling affirms the doctrine “once a tenant, always a tenant,” preventing tenants from denying their status to dispute the landlord’s title during the tenancy.
In Hastam Ashraf Mann v. Muhammad Mohsin (2023 MLD 1911), the Lahore High Court dealt with an application under Section 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, challenging partition proceedings. The court underscored that allegations of fraud and misrepresentation must be specific and substantiated with evidence. This decision highlights the rigorous standards required to overturn judicial decisions on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation, ensuring the integrity of legal processes.
The case of Atia Kausar v. Nasreen Gul (2023 CLC 430) examined the issue of construction on joint property during the pendency of partition appeals. The Lahore High Court held that co-sharers could raise constructions at their own risk and cost, and if the partition appeal favoured the petitioner, the respondents would not be entitled to compensation for such constructions. This ruling clarifies the rights of co-sharers regarding improvements made on joint property pending legal proceedings.
In Syed Ali Asim Jaffari v. Qamar Abbas (2023 CLC 895), the Islamabad High Court addressed the execution of a preliminary decree in a partition suit. The court directed the respondent to hand over possession to the petitioner and determined that mesne profits were due for the period of wrongful possession. This decision reinforces the enforceability of preliminary decrees and the entitlement to compensation for co-sharers deprived of their rightful possession.
In the case of Ghayoor Hussain Shah v. District Judge Bagh, District Bagh, Azad Jammu and Kashmir (2023 CLC 1290) discussed the limitation in co-sharer disputes. The High Court of Azad Kashmir held that a plaint cannot be rejected on the grounds of limitation without proper evidence, especially in cases where co-sharers claim shares in ancestral property. This ruling affirms that ordinary limitation periods do not strictly apply among co-sharers, recognising the continuous nature of their claims.
In Faiz Ullah v. Dilawar Hussain (2022 SCMR 1647), the Supreme Court reiterated that under Muslim Personal Law, the inheritance rights of legal heirs come into effect immediately upon the death of a Muslim. All legal heirs, both lineal and collateral, acquire their respective shares in the estate left by the deceased, becoming co-sharers or co-owners. Each co-sharer is presumed to be in possession of every part of the joint property unless it has been partitioned. This presumption of possession is crucial as it means that each heir has an undivided interest in the entire property until a formal partition occurs. The court also emphasized that possession by one co-sharer is considered possession on behalf of all co-sharers, safeguarding the rights of co-sharers with symbolic possession and clarifying that no limitation period runs against a co-sharer unless a valid transfer by the predecessor is contested after a significant delay.
In Ijaz Ahmed v. Noor ul Ameen (2022 SCMR 1522), the Supreme Court dealt with the requirements of Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad in suits for pre-emption. The court found that the pre-emptor failed to meet these legal requirements, which are crucial in pre-emption claims. The decision underscored that a pre-emptor must demonstrate compliance with these conditions to succeed in their claim, reinforcing the procedural rigour necessary for pre-emption suits under Islamic law.
The case of Khudadad v. Syed Ghazanfar Ali Shah alias S. Inaam Hussain (2022 SCMR 933) highlighted that a co-sharer cannot unilaterally enter into an agreement to sell the entire immovable property without the consent of other co-sharers. Any such agreement is deemed illegal concerning the shares of the non-consenting co-sharers. This ruling underscores the principle that each co-sharer’s consent is essential in transactions involving jointly owned property, thereby protecting the rights of all co-owners.
In Mst. Bibi Fatima v. Muhammad Sarwar (2022 SCMR 870), the Supreme Court addressed the proof required in pre-emption suits. The court held that a “Fard Intikhab” from the Register Haqdaran Zameen is not a substitute for the complete Register Haqdaran Zameen, which carries a presumption of correctness. This ruling emphasizes the need for complete and accurate documentation in legal proceedings involving land ownership and pre-emption rights.
The decision in Sakhi Jan v. Qamar Ali Khan (2022 SCMR 422) dealt with the distribution of property under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987. The court ruled that when multiple parties have equal pre-emption rights, the property should be divided equally among them. This ensures a fair distribution of property among co-sharers with similar legal standings.
In Abdul Rehman v. Mst. Allah Wasai (2022 SCMR 399), the Supreme Court discussed the limitation period for suits seeking inheritance rights. The court clarified that the six-year limitation period under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908, starts when a co-sharer’s rights are explicitly denied or they are ousted from the property. A wrong entry in the revenue record does not constitute such an ouster, reaffirming that inheritance rights devolve immediately upon the deceased’s death under Islamic law without requiring formal intervention.
The case of Faqir Ali v. Sakina Bibi (2022 PLD 85) reiterated that the possession of one or more legal heirs is deemed to be that of their deceased predecessor, and thus, limitation does not run against a co-sharer. This principle protects the inheritance rights of co-sharers by ensuring that the possession by any heir is considered on behalf of all heirs.
In Atta Muhammad v. Sarfaraz (2022 YLR 2154), the Quetta High Court emphasized that law favours the vigilant, not the indolent. The court dismissed a revision petition for delay in filing an appeal, underscoring the importance of timely legal action to protect one’s rights in co-ownership disputes.
In Zakia Begum v. Nasir-ul-Islam Khan (2022 YLR 2015), the Quetta High Court dealt with the validity of a will under Islamic law, which requires the consent of other heirs post-testator’s death. The court ruled that subsequent buyers who purchased property based on such a will are bona fide purchasers if they verified the revenue records. This decision balances the rights of co-sharers and third-party purchasers, ensuring fairness in property transactions.
In Malik Muhammad Ameen v. Mst. Saeeda Maqbool (2022 YLR 742), the Quetta High Court dealt with a suit for declaration, cancellation of mutation entries, and permanent injunction. The petitioner claimed to have purchased a suit house from the respondent’s predecessor, but failed to prove the presence of witnesses or payment of consideration. The court underscored that an agreement to sell a joint property by one co-sharer, without the consent of other co-sharers, does not create a valid claim for transferring the entire property. This ruling reaffirms that all co-sharers must consent to property transactions, ensuring that no single co-owner can unilaterally dispose of the whole property.
In Syed Gulistan v. Gulab Khan (2022 MLD 563), the Quetta High Court emphasized that un-partitioned Shamilat Deh (communal land) cannot be sold or transferred without the consent of all co-sharers. The plaintiff’s failure to mention the details of the purchase and consideration paid invalidated his claim. The court held that any transaction involving communal land without the approval of other co-sharers is void. This case highlights the importance of transparency and collective agreement in dealing with shared property.
The case of Bevergh Khan v. Surat Khan (2022 CLC 1382) discussed the right of pre-emption under Section 231 of Muhammadan Law in Balochistan. The court affirmed that a co-sharer, as a participant in amenities and appendages, and an owner of adjoining immovable property, is entitled to the right of pre-emption. This decision underscores the protective measures in place for co-sharers to retain control over joint properties and prevent unwanted external influence.
In Muhammad Yousaf v. Hamid Farooq Khan (2022 MLD 1495), the Peshawar High Court addressed the division of property after a pre-emptory decree. The court held that the property should be distributed equally between the pre-emptor and the vendee, as both are co-sharers. This ruling ensures fairness in the distribution of property rights among co-sharers following a pre-emption decree.
The Lahore High Court, in Abdul Haq v. Akram-ul-Haq (2022 PLD 766), dealt with the partition of a disputed shop. The court ruled that privately partitioned property, agreed upon through a family settlement, should be respected and declared final. This decision emphasizes the binding nature of family settlements and private agreements in partitioning joint property, provided they are equitable and consensual.
In Muhammad Aslam v. Federal Board of Revenue (2022 PTD 1510), the Lahore High Court ruled that mutation of inheritance does not confer title but serves for revenue purposes. The court clarified that the right of inheritance becomes effective immediately upon the death of the predecessor, and the relevant date for tax purposes is the date of death, not the date of mutation. This ruling protects the inheritance rights of heirs, ensuring they are not unfairly burdened by tax implications.
In Zia-ul-Haq v. Muhammad Ismail (2022 YLR 2491), the Lahore High Court dealt with the maintainability of an injunction to prevent changes in the nature of joint property. The court held that no co-sharer can change the nature of the property in their possession without partition by metes and bounds. This decision ensures that the status quo of joint property is maintained until an equitable partition is achieved.
The Lahore High Court, in Ashiq Muhammad v. Abdul Majeed (2022 YLR 650), addressed the issue of limitation in pre-emption suits. The court emphasized that mala fide intentions and failure to rebut evidence can result in the dismissal of such suits. This ruling underscores the importance of good faith and diligent prosecution in asserting pre-emption rights.
In Ghazanfir Ali v. Malik Muhammad Ansar (2022 YLR 390), the Lahore High Court clarified the requirements for pre-emption based on contiguity. The court held that partial or deficient sharing of boundaries is insufficient for claiming pre-emption rights. The decision ensures that only those with a substantial and direct interest in the adjoining property can successfully claim pre-emption.
These cases collectively underscore the judiciary’s commitment to protecting the rights of co-sharers, ensuring transparency in property transactions, and maintaining procedural fairness in disputes involving jointly owned properties. The principles established in these rulings provide a robust legal framework for resolving co-ownership conflicts in Pakistan.
