ALLAHDIN Versus ALAMUDDIN
This appeal arose from a dispute over the ownership of property originally purchased by respondent No. 1 in the names of others, who were alleged to be benamidars. Following a decree in favor of respondent No. 1, and subsequent appellate and revisional proceedings, the appellants intervened, claiming ownership through a gift from respondent No. 1 and alleging that respondent No. 1's withdrawal of his ownership claim in the revision proceedings was fraudulent. The High Court allowed the revision petition but directed that the appellants' claim be adjudicated in separate proceedings. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in declining to adjudicate the appellants' claim of fraudulent withdrawal within the existing revision proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court correctly refrained from recording elaborate evidence required to determine the validity of the alleged gift and the alleged fraud. The Court affirmed that the High Court's order did not prejudice the appellants' rights, as they remained free to ventilate their grievances in an independent, competent proceeding.
- Whether a High Court in revision proceedings is obligated to adjudicate a claim of fraud raised by an intervener when such a claim requires the recording of extensive evidence?
- Can an appellate or revisional court direct parties to resolve a disputed claim of ownership in separate proceedings rather than deciding it within the pending revision?
- Does an order in revision proceedings that leaves open the possibility of an independent suit for an intervener prejudice their legal rights?
- Section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J .‑‑This is an appeal by leave against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Sind High Court, dated 3‑5‑1981.
2. Haji Alamuddin plaintiff (now respondent No.1) had purchased two houses and one plot of land bearing C.S. Nos.162, 163 and 164/13, situate in Nawabshah, in the name of Muhammad Yousuf and Muhammad Farooq (sons of petitioners 1 and 2) and Abdul Hamid son of Abdul Majid, defendants 1 to 3. Subsequently some dispute arose between the parties, as a result of which Haji Alamuddin (respondent No.1) filed a suit for a declaration to the effect that he was the real beneficiary of the suit property while defendants 1 to 3 being merely benamidars had no right, title or interest in the aforesaid property.
An injunction against the defendants for restraining them from interfering with the suit property was also sought. Muhammad Yousuf and Muhammad Farooq defendants admitted the rights of Alamuddin respondent No.1 but Abdul Hamid (now respondent No.2) contested the suit. The learned Civil Judge at Nawabshah after recording the evidence of the parties decreed the suit of respondent No.1 on 30‑4‑1971. Abdul Hamid (respondent No.2) filed an appeal from the above decree in the Court of Additional District Judge, Nawabshah, which too was dismissed on 30‑8‑1972. Still not satisfied he filed a revision petition in the High Court. It was during the pendency of the revision petition that Abdul Hamid submitted an application on 6‑8‑1978 for allowing the revision petition on the strength of an admission made by Haji Alamuddin (respondent No.l) through an affidavit dated 4th May, 1978. The said revision was yet to be decided when on 17‑3‑1979 the appellants submitted an application resisting the application made by respondent No.2 and submitted that the property in question belonged to them and that they should be allowed to defend the case. The learned Single Judge who heard the case allowed the revision petition of Abdul Hamid by his impugned order and so far as the claim of the appellants was concerned, the learned Judge took the view that there being a dispute between the parties with regard to the suit property, it ought to be decided in separate proceeding.
3. Leave in this case was granted to consider the propriety of the order of the High Court.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants has been heard. He strenuously urged that the question of ownership of the suit property having been decided by the High Court in the revision application, no scope has been left for the appellants to succeed in their claim as to the ownership of the property by virtue of gift made by respondent No.1 in their favour and further that since the appellants had categorically raised the plea that the statement of Haji Alamuddin withdrawing his claim of ownership of the suit property was fraudulently made, it was obligatory on the High Court to decide(B this controversy, for a separate suit in this regard would be barred by the provision of section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
5. We have examined the above submissions in the light of the findings of the High Court and we do not find any merit in them. The appellants joined the proceedings in the High Court as interveners with a claim to have become owner through a gift made in their favour by respondent No.1. This claim has been denied by the said respondent. The question, therefore, whether respondent No.1 fraudulently withdrew his claim of ownership in favour of respondent No.2 obviously required recording of elaborate evidence, which the learned Judge has rightly refrained to do. The learned Judge while allowing the revision has also made it clear that his order will not prejudice the right of the intervenors and that it will be open to them to ventilate their grievance in any independent proceeding if the same be filed and be competent. Thus, by holding so, an opportunity has been afforded to the appellants to establish their right in a proper forum.
5. We thus find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
M.I./A‑172/S Appeal dismissed