MUHAMMAD ALEEM and others vs Mst. HAMEEDA BEGUM and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment concerning a property dispute. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to exclusive possession of a specific portion of land, given that the land had been partitioned by mutual agreement between the petitioner and his brother, a fact acknowledged by the respondents in their written statement. The High Court had previously held that the respondents were bound by their own pleadings regarding the partition, regardless of the absence of a formal registered partition deed. The Supreme Court affirmed this reasoning, concluding that because the partition had already effectively taken place, there was no live issue remaining for adjudication. Consequently, the Supreme Court found that no substantial question of law was involved to warrant the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was declined, thereby restoring the trial court's original judgment and decree in favor of the petitioner.
- Can a party be bound by an admission made in their written statement regarding the partition of property?
- Does the absence of a formal registered partition deed preclude a claim for exclusive possession when the partition is otherwise acknowledged?
- Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 when no substantial question of law is involved?
- Article 185(3), Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
- Registration Act 1908
ORDER
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 21-1-2003 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the impugned judgment. Concluding para. Of the impugned judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "Having considered the record and the impugned judgment, I am not in the slightest doubt that the land allotted jointly to the petitioners and his brother Noor Muhammad had in fact, been partitioned by mutual agreement and that the two brothers were in occupation of their respective shares. This circumstance, as discussed above, has expressly been acknowledged and asserted by the respondents in their written statement. They cannot, therefore, escape the consequences of the said averment be turning around and adopting a contrary plea that the petitioner was not entitled to exclusive possession of his share of the suit-land. This conclusion would follow even if technically it is held that no formal partition deed has been executed between the two brothers and registered under the Registration Act. At this juncture, it is important to note that the suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff merely sought possession of the portion of the disputed property which admittedly fell in his share of the same and he was not claiming any land in excess of his entitlement. On the other hand, the respondents were occupying land in excess of their entitlement and this had been done through forcible dispossession of the tenants of the petitioner/plaintiff, who were occupying a portion of the building raised by the petitioner/plaintiff. In this view of the matter, I find that the impugned judgment and decree are not sustainable. The same are therefore, set aside. As a consequence the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, dated 26-9-1998 stand restored."
3. In our considered opinion as the partition of the property had already taken place, therefore, no live issue is left for consideration. Even otherwise no question of law is involved in the instant case warranting exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, as such, this petition is dismissed and leave declined.
Leave to appeal declined.