MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR vs Syed ZAKIR HUSSAIN SHAH and another
This civil revision petition concerns a dispute between joint owners of agricultural land in Attock, where the respondents, as co-owners, occupied a specific portion of the unpartitioned joint property and commenced construction. The petitioner, a fellow co-owner, sought a temporary injunction to restrain this construction, which was refused by both the trial court and the appellate court. Upon review, the Lahore High Court admitted the revision petition for regular hearing. The Court reaffirmed the settled legal principle that every co-owner possesses an interest in every inch of joint property, and consequently, no co-owner is entitled to take possession of a specific portion or alter the character of the land without first obtaining a formal partition. Relying on established precedent, the Court held that such unilateral action by a co-owner is impermissible. Consequently, the Court granted an interim order restraining the respondents from continuing construction and directed the parties to maintain the status quo pending the final adjudication of the revision petition.
- Can a co-owner of joint property take possession of a specific portion of land without formal partition?
- Is a co-owner entitled to change the character of joint property without the consent of other co-owners?
- Does a co-owner have an interest in every inch of joint property?
ORDER
' Muhammad Zubair petitioner is a joint owner of 89 Kanals and 2 Marlas of agricultural land in Khasra No, 541, village Jabbar, Tehsil and District Attock. Respondents Zakir Hussain and Syed Umar Badshah are also joint owners of 13 Kanals in the said land. The land in question has not been partitioned and is still joint property. The respondents have taken possession of a specific piece of land out of this joint land and started raising construction.
' This action of the respondents has been challenged by way of civil suit brought by the petitioner in the civil Court of Attock and alongwith the suit application praying for temporary injunction was also brought which was declined by the learned Trial Court. Being aggrieved the petitioner appealed and prayed for the grant of a temporary injunction which was declined by the learned appellate Court also. Hence, this revision petition.
2. It is now settled law that every co-owner in a joint property has an interest in each and every inch of the said land and that no joint owner can without first having the property partitioned, take hold of any specific portion or change its character. In this context learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the case of Ali Gohar Khan v. Sher Ayaz and others reported in 1989 SCM R 130.
3. The contentions raised required consideration.
4. Admit. Notice. Record.
C.M. No, 942/95
5. Since the main revision petition has been admitted to a regular hearing, the respondents are restrained from raising any further constructions on the land in question and are directed to maintain status quo meanwhile. C.M. No, 943/95
Cited by 12 cases
- Haji JANGI KHAN and anothers vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD and otherss 2016 MLD 1735
- MUHAMMAD MANZOOR KHAN Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad 2015 MLD 1452
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus AHMED DIN 2015 MLD 864
- Ch. Muhammad Ibrahim Zia, J MUHAMMAD QASIM vs RAZIA BEGUM and 5 2012 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 198, 2012 CLC 1118
- MUHAMMAD QASIM vs RAZIA BEGUM & 5 others 2012 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 198
- MUHAMMAD ZAREEF KHAN and another vs MUHAMMAD MAROOF and 6 2009 YLR 2454
- MOHSIN JABEEN vs ABDUL SATTAR SHEKHA and others 2007 YLR 2783
- Mrs. SAADIA MUZAFFAR through her Attorney vs Mrs. KHADIJA MANZUR and another 2006 CLC 401
- Mst. SHAEEN ISHFAQUE and others vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others 2004 MLD 1553
- MURID AHMED vs Mst. SAHAB BIBI and others 1998 CLC 857
- FOJDAR KHAN And Another vs AZAD GOVERNMENT Through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad And 4 OTHER 2001 CLC 920
- Mst. SHAHEEN ISHFAQUE and 8 others vs ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRANWALA and 2 others 2005 PLJ Lahore 266