ALI SARWAR Versus Mst. MARYUM
MUHAMMAD YAQOOB, J.--- This appeal by leave of the Court has been directed against the judgment/decree dated 21-10-2008, passed by the learned Chief Court Northern Areas, in a Civil Revision arising out of Civil Suit involving dispute of partition of inheritance situated at Rahimabad Tehsil & District Gilgit. The learned Chief Court has set aside the concurrent judgments of the Courts below without going into the real bone of contention.
The learned counsel for the parties having conceded the legal position and agreeing with proposition, that rights of the parties cannot be defeated, on technical grounds have consented for framing of material issues and remand of the case to trial Court for determination of bone of contention between the parties to the petition for leave to appeal.
We have given our judicious thought to the proposition advanced by the learned counsel for parties and also perused the relevant record of the case. The following additional issues are framed herein below:-
1. Whether Qalander and Qalb Ali had got their respective shares at Rahimabad Gilgit in the property of Dervesh (late father) in consequence of family partition? O.P.P.
2. Whether late Qalander Ali has exchanged his property situated at Rahimabad with the property of Qalab Ali at Hunza? O.P.D
3. Whether both Qalab Ali and Nazar Shah had got their shares in the property situated at Rahimabad bearing Khasara Nos.139, 114, 142 and 355?O. P. P
4. Whether the late Nazar Shah had ever got the possession of suit land bearing Khasara Nos.114 and 139? O.P.D.
5. Whether the plaintiff had tampered the Revenue Record against the legal heirs of late Nazar Shah prepared in 1946 and 1938? O.P.D.
6. Whether the defendants namely Mst. Maryum and Mst. Afida are the legal heirs of the late Nazar Shah? O.P.D
7. Whether Ali Sarwar or Mst. Bibi Maryum and Mst. Afida had initially handed over the possession of suit land bearing Khasara Nos.139 and 114 to late Mr. Shah Gul father of Issa Khan? O.P.P.
8. Whether gift dated 17-12-80, is void and liable to be cancelled as donee Mst. Razia is lunatic? O.P.D
In view of the foregoing reasons we have come to the conclusion that it is a fit case for remand. The short order dated 7-7-2009, is reproduced hereunder is treated as part of this judgment:--
"For the reasons to be recorded later on, this petition is converted into an appeal and allowed. The case is remanded back to the trial Court for fresh decision. No order as to the costs."
The learned trial Court is hereby directed for determination of the above questions in accordance with law. The learned trial Judge will provide proper opportunity to the parties to bring on record the evidence in support of their respective claim and will decide the above issues in the light thereof. The findings on the remaining points are not in contest and consequently this appeal is allowed in the above terms with no order as to costs.
M.H./15/Glt. Case remanded.