ABDUL RASHID (REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS) AND ANOTHER vs SADIQ ALI
This matter concerns a property dispute over the outhouses of a bungalow in Lahore, which were subject to a partition agreement between the parties in 1960. The core legal question was whether the outhouses constituted a separate entity capable of being transferred independently, and whether the parties were bound by their prior mutual consent to the partition of the property. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the petition for leave to appeal. The Court held that the parties had previously agreed to the partition of the bungalow, and had subsequently acted upon this agreement by constructing boundary walls to demarcate their respective portions. Consequently, the Court determined that the petitioners could not now challenge the division of the property. The key principle laid down is that where parties have mutually consented to a mode of property division and have acted upon that agreement by creating physical demarcations, they are bound by their civil rights and cannot subsequently challenge the validity of the partition or the status of the property portions as separate entities.
- Are parties bound by a mutual agreement to partition property when they have acted upon that agreement by physically demarcating the portions?
- Can a party challenge the status of property portions as separate entities after having previously consented to their division?
ORDER
1. ' G. SAPDAR SHAH, J.-The dispute in this case relates to the outhouses of Bungalow No, SW-108-R-4, situate on Rashid Road, Lahore. On 1-1-1960, the Assistant Settlement Commissioner with powers of Deputy Settlement Commissioner, on the mutual consent of the parties herein, divided the said bungalow in three portions with the result that the outhouses in question were transferred to the respondents. Against the said order, the petitioners went in appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner, who however, rejected the same vide order, dated 8-6-1960 as barred by time, but even so went into the merits of the case and held that the outhouses were not separate entity as they formed part of the bungalow itself. The petitioners challenged the said order in revision before the Settlement Commissioner, who vide his order dated 12-12-1960, allowed the same and consequently transferred the outhouses in favour of the petitioners. Against the said order respondents went in second revision before the Chief Settlement Commissioner but the same was dismissed, vide his order dated 2-6-1962. Finally, the respondents filed in the High Court Writ Petition No, 1112-R/1962, which was allowed by order dated 10-12-1965 mainly on the ground that the Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdiction to condone the delay in favour of the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved of the said order, the petitioners challenged the same before the L. P, A. Bench, but on 15-3-1973 they withdrew their appeal, and thereafter pursued their case before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, to whom the case had been remanded by the High Court, who in the end held in favour of the petitioners. The respondents were evidently aggrieved of the said order and consequently challenged the same through Writ Petition No 561-R/1973 in the High Court which was allowed by the impugned judgment.
2. ' In seeking leave to appeal, Ch. Abdul Manan, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the outhouses of the bungalow in dispute could by no recknoning be described as separate entity, and consequently the High Court was in error to hold otherwise. I here is no force in this contention. A perusal of the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, the Additional Settlement Commissioner, as well as the Settlement Commissioner would show that the said bungalow had been partitioned with the consent of all the occupants as a result of which partition, the outhouses came to the share of the respondents. Not only this but after the said partition, the parties herein had raised walls around their respective portions, and that was why the High Court held that "As these are the personal civil rights of the parties it was well within their own power to challenge or not to challenge it or to agree to a particular mode of division amongst them". The learned counsel for the petitioners has not disputed these facts, therefore, the contentions urged by him against the impugned judgment of the High Court are evidently untenable.
3. ' This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed.