Kh. MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND Others vs Ch. MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND Other
This matter arose from a dispute between two brothers regarding the partition of a jointly transferred house. Initially, both parties filed a joint application for partition, which was accepted by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner based on an agreed mode of partition. Subsequently, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner issued an ex parte order effecting a fresh partition, which was challenged by the respondent. While the respondent's appeal and revision failed, the High Court accepted his writ petition, holding that the partition originally agreed upon and effected by compromise between the two brothers was binding on them. On further petition, the Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that the factual controversies raised did not warrant interference and that the partition approved by the High Court based on the parties' compromise was just, proper, and legally binding.
- Whether a partition of property effected by mutual compromise between co-owners is legally binding on them?
- Can a settlement authority unilaterally alter a partition scheme previously agreed upon by the parties through a joint application?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's decision in a writ petition when the grounds raised relate primarily to factual controversies?
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.-The facts briefly stated are that the house in dispute was jointly transferred to two brothers, Khawaja Muhammad Aslam, Petitioner No. 1 and Khawaja Muhammad Akram, respondent No. 1 by the order of Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 28-10-1969. This order was upheld after litigation between the two brothers in appeal, review, etc. On 6-10-1961.
2. On 7-4-1932 both the brothers filed a joint application for partition of the house between them. The application was accepted by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and the mode of partition as suggested therein was approved. Thereafter, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner by an ex pane order dated 12-6-1968 effected a fresh partition. Khawaja Muhammad Akram's challenge to this order in appeal and revision failed but he succeeded before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 766- R of 1--69 as learned Single Judge who heard the case held that the partition effected by compromise by the two brothers was binding on them.
3. Mr. Abid Hassain Minto, learned counsel for the petitioners raised certain pleas in support of the petition but all these relate to factual contro--versy upon which interference by this Court would not be warranted. After having examined the record in order to ascertain if the partition of the house finally approved by the High Court is just and proper, we are clearly of the view that the order of the High Court is not open to and- exception even on merits of the case.
4. The petition is therefore, dismissed in limine.