https://www.facebook.com/100250465604985/

Legal Decisions, Valancia town Lahore, Lahore (2026)

29/01/2026

2026 SCMR 171
Art. 84---Comparison of handwriting or signatures by court---Scope---Court making comparison on its own motion without any expert---Cautious approach---Courts have the power to compare the admitted signatures with the ones in dispute---But the rule of prudence is that comparison of signatures by courts as a mode of ascertaining the truth should be used with great care and caution---Where a Judge compares the handwriting or signatures with other documents which are produced before him and which are not challenged as fabricated, such a process of comparison by the court upon its own initiative and without the guidance of an expert is hazardous and recognizably inconclusive.

C.A. No. 132-L of 2013
Tasneem Abas vs ADJ

28/01/2026

2026 CLC 12
نان ونفقہ میں سالانہ اضافہ ابتدائی ڈگری(basic)کی رقم بجائے موجودہ(current) رقم پر ہوگا
مثلا اگر فیملی کورٹ 5000 روپے ماہوار خرچہ ناں و نفقہ ڈگری کرتی ہے تو پہلے سال سالانہ اضافہ 5000 روپے کی رقم پر ہوگا اگلے سال سالانہ اضافہ 5500 روپے اور اگلے سال سالانہ اضافہ 6050 روپے کی رقم پر ہوگا

Section 17-A(3) of the Family Courts Act, 1964 interpreted to hold that it postulates compound calculation of annual 10% increase in the maintenance allowance.

It is abundantly clear that Section 17-A(3) of the Act is a beneficial, remedial or curative provision which calls for liberal interpretation. It is triggered when the Court omits to prescribe annual increase in maintenance or does not expressly specify if annual increase so prescribed will take effect on compound or non-compound basis while passing a decree under Section 17-A(2) read with Section 12(2) of the Act. If the legislature has not specifically provided for compound calculation in Section 17-A(3) of the Act, it is equally true that the legislature(naeem) has also not provided otherwise. The expression „the maintenance fixed by the Court shall automatically stand increased at the rate of ten percent each year” ordinarily imply that quantum of maintenance fixed under a decree does not remain static or constant but is a variable figure which is meant to increase after each year. After increase of 10% at the end of first year, a new quantum of maintenance comes in field and the amount gets merged or amalgamated in the quantum of maintenance(naeem) fixed by Court. The process is repeated after each year till the legal entitlement of wife or children under the decree. Therefore, annual increase of each year is required to be calculated on the merged amount of last preceding year for the reason that 10% increase is intrinsically linked with the principal amount and is an inseparable part of the decree. If the rent is traditionally increased with reference to the last prevailing rent, there is no reason why maintenance should not be increased based on the same principle. The compound calculation of maintenance not only caters for inflation and rising cost of living but also allows to account for growing needs and requirements of wife and children, thus, reducing the occasions to resort to Court seeking enhancement in maintenance allowance. Hence(naeem), it is concluded that when a decree of maintenance does not prescribe an annual increase or is silent qua calculation of prescribed annual enhancement on principal or aggregate amount of maintenance, Section 17A(3) of the Act will come into operation and the Executing Court shall calculate the due decreed amount on compound basis.
7340/24

25/01/2026

PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 448
جعلی بیعنامہ کی تیاری۔
جرم 467 ت پ کا اطلاق ہوگا۔
اگر تفتیشی نے اگر کوئی قابل اطلاق دفعہ کا اطلاق نہیں بھی کیا ہو تو عدالت بوقت سماعت درخواست ضمانت خود بھی اسکا جائزہ لے سکتی ہے۔
It is not a rule of universal application that a crime of fraud/forgery can only be reported by a person, who is directly affected thereby. Such like nefarious activities, which are crimes not only against any individual, but against the public at large, can be brought into the knowledge of concerned authorities by any person of the public and authorities can inquire into and investigate the same when the same (naeem)come into their knowledge, even if these are not reported by any person.

Forgery of a sale deed (valuable security) shall attract the charge under section 467 PPC, which entails the penalty of imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description, which may extend to ten years. Above penal provision was not applied by Investigating Officer, but it was also prima-facie made out, as such I feel no hesitation in holding that said offence attracting (naeem)against the petitioner was falling within embargo contained under Section 497 of Cr.P.C.
Crl. Misc. No.8612-B/2025.
Riaz Ahmad Versus The State etc. .

25/01/2026

جعلی چیک دینے کے بعد راضی نامہ ۔
تازہ ترین عدالتی فیصلہ !
*Compromise Deed -* راضی نامہ کی شرائط
Dishonring of cheque - Grant of pre or post arrest Bail.
It was held in Salman Khalid vs. The State etc. reported in PLD 2020 Lahore 97, decided by Anwaar-ul-Haq Pannun, Judge, that -
High Court provided guidelines for proceeding with cases u/s 489-F, PPC, involving compromise at Pre~arrest or post arrest Bail stage stated.
Following are the guidelines as provided by the High Court:.
راضی نامہ تحریری اور دستخط شدہ ہونا چاہیے
(i) A compromise deed shall be in writing and duly signed or thumb marked by the accused as well as the person in whose favour, the dishonoured cheque was issued by the accused or any other person duly authorized by the payee
ملزم کے وکیل، یا اس کے نامزدشدہ شخص کے بیان کو قلمبندکیاجائے۔
(ii) In case of post arrest bail, the Court seized with the Bail application due to the accused being in jail, shall also record the statement of the counsel, representing accused or any other person duly authorized by the accused for this purpose.
ضمانت کی سطح پر راضی نامہ کی تمام شرائط عدالت کو واضح کردینی چاہیے، اور ملزم شرائط کی تابع داری کرے گا۔
(iii) The Court, while giving effect to the compounding character of the offence, at Bail stage shall reflect the terms and conditions of the compromise in its Bail granting order besides clearly stating that the accused shall only be entitled to enjoy the liberty, he has earned by way of concession of bail, provided he honours the terms of compromise deed.
ملزم راضی نامہ میں بیان کردہ تاریخ کے اندر اندر واجب ادا رقم اداکرےگا۔اگررقم ادانہ کی، تو ضمانت کی رعایت سے محروم ہوسکتاہے۔البتہ مدعی رحم دلی کا مظاہرہ بھی کرسکتاہے۔
(iv) The accused shall make payment of amount of cheque or settled b/w the parties, to the payee on the date fixed in compromise deed or in case of any exigency within next three days. In case of any default, even in making payment of any installment, the accused shall lose his right to enjoy the concession of Bail. The complainant, however may show grace and accept any request on part of the accused for extension of time.
اگرمقررہ وقت تک رقم نہ دی، تو ضمانت نامہ منسوخی کیے بغیر ہی ضمانت منسوخ تصورہوگی۔
(v) In case of default, in absence of a consent of the complainant, for extension of time, in making the payment of amount settled b/w the parties through compromise, the Bail granting order shall be deemed to have been vacated automatically on the expiry of date fixed.
راضی نامہ پر عمل نہ کرنا، موقف سے انحراف تصورہوگا، اور ضمانت کا غلط استعمال گردانہ جائےگا
(vi) After seeking relief of Bail on the basis of compromise, the Non~compliance of its terms and conditions will amount to breach of commitment and misuse of concession of Bail by the accused for the period he enjoy the said concession in the form of liberty instead of facing the rigors of jail.
مدعی ضمانت منسوخی کی بجائے ٹرائل کورٹ کو متفرق درخواست دے کہ راضی نامہ کی خلاف ورزی کی گئی ہے،اور ٹرائل کورٹ ملزم کو دوبارہ گرفتارکرواسکتی ہے۔
(vii) The complainant shall not be obliged to file a formal application for cancellation of Bail u/s 497(5) CrPC either before the trial Court or before any higher Court which had passed the Bail granting order. However, the complainant, in case of default in making payment by the accused, may file only a miscellaneous application before the trial Court inviting its attention towards the default made by the accused, thereupon, learned trial Court shall pass an order for committing the accused to custody.
یہ راضی نامہ کی ایک علیحدہ قسم کے طور پرٹرائل کورٹ ریکارڈ مرتب کرے۔
(viii) All the trial Courts seized with the trial/ proceedings for the offence u/s 489-F, PPC, shall prepare a separate category of compromise cases with some special identity so that the case may be dealt with, in terms of Bail granting order.
اگرراضی نامہ پر موثر عمل ہوتاہے، تو کاروائی مقدمہ اختتام کوپہنچ سکتی ہے۔ایسا عدالت درخواست پربھی کرسکتی ہے، اور ازخود کاروائی پربھی ایسا قدم اُٹھاسکتی ہے۔
(ix) In case, the trial Court, is satisfied that the terms of the compromise have been fulfilled and acted upon, the Court, on its own motion or on the application of either party shall give effect to the compromise, by way of termination of proceedings in the case.

23/01/2026

پنجاب حکومت نے بیان حلفی اسٹامپ پیپرز کی فیس میں اضافہ کر دیا.
ای سٹامپ پیپر کی فیس 100 روپے سے بڑھا کر 300 روپے کردی گئی ،

*پراپرٹی سیلز ایگریمنٹ ای سٹامپ پیپر کی فیس 1200 روپے سے بڑھا کر 3ہزار روپے کردی گئی ہے ۔*

پراپرٹی کے علاوہ کسی بھی معاہدے کیلئے استعمال ہونے والے ای سٹامپ پیپر کی فیس 100 روپے سے بڑھا کر 500 کردی گئی ہے ۔

*5 لاکھ روپے تک معاہدے کیلئے ای سٹامپ پیپر کی فیس 1200 سے بڑھا کر 3 ہزار کردی گئی ہے ،5 لاکھ روپے سے 10 لاکھ روپے تک معاہدے کی فیس میں 3 ہزار اضافہ کردیا، ڈیڑھ کروڑ روپے سے زائد مالیت کیلئے استعمال ہونے والے اسٹامپ پیپر کی فیس میں 20 ہزار روپے اضافہ کیا گیا ۔*

طلاق کیلئے استعمال ہونے والے سٹامپ پیپر کی فیس 100 روپے سے بڑھا کر 1 ہزار روپے مقرر

*پاور آف اٹارنی کے ای سٹامپ پیپر فیس 1500 سے 1800 اضافہ کیا گیا ہے۔*

29/12/2025

2025 P Cr. L J 1983

Request for physical remand of the accused was turned down and he was discharged---Held: that record showed that accused had been nominated in the FIR for preparing false and forged agreement to sell the property of late mother of complainant---Judicial Magistrate discharged the accused on the ground that matter was sub-judice between the parties on civil side, where the alleged document was used for obtaining stay orders---Court is the competent forum to proceed under S.195, Cr.P.C, if the document is found to be false and ficticious---Private person is barred by S.195, Cr.P.C to make any complaint in such regard---Standard of proof required in the two proceedings is entirely different---Civil cases are decided on preponderance of evidence, while in a criminal case, the entire burden lies on the prosecution and proof beyond reasonable doubt has to be given---Moreover, there is neither any statutory provision nor any legal principle that the findings recorded in one proceeding may be treated as final or binding in the other, as both cases have to be decided based on the evidence adduced therein---Section 195, Cr.P.C will be attracted only when the offenses enumerated in the said provision have been committed concerning a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court---Existence of the document was not denied---Admittedly, the document had not been produced or given in evidence---Thus, the findings of the Judicial Magistrate were perverse and against the law---Impugned orders were set aside and matter was remanded to decid the same afresh---

ORDER..........---Through the instant petition, under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 12.12.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate Section-30, District Courts, Lahore, have been challenged, whereby the accused/respondent No.5 was discharged from the case for insufficient incriminating material regarding the accused's implication.

2. Heard. Record perused.

3. Bare facts and perusal of the impugned order show that the investigating officer, through the application, requested for further physical remand of respondent No. 5. The physical remand of respondent No.5 was asked for by the police as some document had to be recovered from him for completion of the investigation. The Judicial Magistrate Section-30, Lahore, while discharging the accused (respondent No. 5), turned down the request for further physical remand of the accused (respondent No. 5). The accused (respondent No. 5) was discharged on the following grounds:-

"I.O through this application requested for further physical remand of the accused person.

The record shows the accused as nominated in FIR for preparing a false and forged agreement to sell belonging to the property of Naziran Bibi (late), the mother of complainant. Previously seven days physical remand was accorded for the completion of investigation and recovery of alleged document. Presently, the matter is sub-judice between the parties on civil side, where the alleged document is used for obtaining stay orders. The court is the competent forum to proceed under section 195 Cr.P.C., if the document is found to be false and fictitious. A private person is barred by section 195, Cr.P.C. make any complaint in this regard.

So far as facts are concerned, during the investigation conducted till so far no forgery is established on part of present accused. As per report by ADC (R) license in the name of Muhammad Sharif (Stamp Vendor) is found to be valid from 1974 to 23.01.2015 (when cancelled). However, Stamp vending register for 2013-14 was not deposited by said Stamp Vendor but it could not be termed that stamp papers issued during this period are fake and fictitious. Nothing is recovered from the possession of present accused despite of 07 days physical remand. In such circumstances, I do not find any incriminating material on record and turn down the request of I.O for physical remand. The accused is discharged from this case FIR and be released, if not required in any other case."

Coming to the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No. 5 that an effort should be made to avoid conflict of findings between the civil and criminal courts, it is necessary to point out that the standard of proof required in the two proceedings is entirely different. Civil cases are decided based on preponderance of evidence, while in a criminal case, the entire burden lies on the prosecution, and proof beyond reasonable doubt has to be given. There is neither any statutory provision nor any legal principle that the findings recorded in one proceeding may be treated as final or binding in the other, as both cases have to be decided based on the evidence adduced therein. Section 195, Cr.P.C. would be attracted only when the offenses enumerated in the said provision have been committed concerning a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court. The existence of the document is not denied. The learned counsel for respondent No. 5 admitted that the document had not been produced or given in evidence. Findings of the Judicial Magistrate Section-30, Lahore, are perverse and against the law. The findings of the Judicial Magistrate Section-30, Lahore, are perverse and result from misreading and non-reading the oral and documentary evidence on the record and file. The order dated 12.12.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Section-30, Lahore, is set aside. The matter is referred to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Lahore, to entrust the case to any other Judicial Magistrate Section-30 to decide the matter afresh after issuing notice to all the concerned parties and allowing them to be heard by the law.

4. With the above observations, the instant petition stands disposed of.
Writ Petition No. 82843 of 2023
Rasoolan Bibi vs Versus
The State.

25/12/2025

VVVI. MUST READ JUDGEMENT.
سیلف چیک ڈس آنر ھونے پر 489 ایف کا اطلاق نہ ھوتا ھے

Can a dishonoured ‘self’ cheque i.e. a cheque issued by an account holder i.e. drawer to ‘himself’ (payee) ever result in attracting criminal liability i.e. three years of hard treatment in addition to stigmatization and moral blameworthiness, contained in Section 489-F PPC?

Can a person dupe himself?

Can a person lend money to himself and thereby assume an obligation to repay himself?

Can a person defraud himself?

Can a person bind himself to an obligation that he owes himself?

Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code of 1860 criminalizes and resultantly penalizes the act of dishonestly issuing a cheque towards repayment of a loan or fulfilment of an obligation, which is dishonoured on presentation by punishment with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine, or with both, unless the drawer can establish, for which the burden of proof shall rest on him, that he had made arrangements with his bank to ensure that the cheque would be honoured and that the bank was at fault in not honouring the cheque.

The term „dishonestly‟ has been defined by the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 in Section 24 to mean doing anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person.

In order for the act of issuance of a cheque to constitute a cognizable offence under Section 489-F of the PPC, 1860 not only must the cheque be issued with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another but the cheque must also be issued towards the repayment of a loan or fulfillment of an obligation.

A “self-cheque” has neither been defined by the Penal Code nor the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, but it is obviously a cheque wherein the drawer himself is the payee. The word “issues” in terms of a cheque has been expounded by virtue of Section 3 (e) of the Act of 1881 to mean “the first delivery of a… cheque complete in form to a person who takes it as holder” while the term “holder” of a cheque has been defined by Section 8 of the Act of 1881 to mean “the payee or endorsee who is in possession of it or the bearer thereof”. The term “payee” has been explained by Section 7 to mean “The person named in the instrument, to whom or to whose order the money is by the instrument directed to be paid".

Quite obviously, if the payee is “self” it can be reasonably and correctly presumed that the money for which the cheque was issued was to be paid to the drawer himself and it is also reasonable to presume that a person would not dishonestly issue a cheque to pay money to himself and that the cheque was not issued towards the repayment of a loan or towards the fulfillment of some legal obligation one has towards oneself.

Needless to state that the ambit of the offence in Pakistan is further constrained by the words “whoever dishonestly issues a cheque…”, which are absent in Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 presently in field in India. Not only this but Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in India further presumes that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, unless the contrary is proved. There is no such presumption under 489-F of the PPC, 1860, which only makes another unrelated presumption: that the drawer had made arrangements with his bank to ensure that the cheque would be honored and that the bank was at fault in not honoring the cheque. In relation to the issuance of a cheque, the Pakistan Penal Code does not presume that the holder of a cheque received it for the discharge of any debt or other liability meaning thereby that the onus shall be on the holder to prove in the first instance that he received it for such purpose.

Therefore, when the question pertains to issuance of a “self-cheque”, whereby the drawer is himself the payee, the offence created by Section 489-F is not attracted.

Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 mandates the registration or recording of information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, and the information provided by the informant must allege the commission of a cognizable offence. In case a cheque is made out to self only, and there is no supporting evidence that the bearer was in fact a holder in due course of such a cheque, the commission of a cognizable offence cannot be established.

If the cheque is issued to “Self” only, there will be no question of any offence. The problem arises when a Cheque is issued to “Self” but the same also allows the (unidentified) bearer to collect the proceeds and is presented by some person (since any bearer can present and get the cheque encashed) and upon its dishonour such person approaches the police for registration of FIR under Section 489-F. In the case before this Court the bearer of the Cheque is the Complainant and asserts the commission of offence without there being anything on record to show that he himself is the creditor of the drawer of the cheque. Therefore, it cannot be ascertained without more that the drawer of the cheque intended that the complainant could present the cheque and hence there is nothing to indicate that the drawer had any intention to issue the cheque to the complainant let alone a dishonest intention and no evidence suggests that the complainant is creditor of the drawer either.
However since an offence under Section 489-F requires the cheque to have been issued with dishonest intention as well as for the purpose of payment against a loan or liability, being a mere „payee‟ or a „bearer‟ would arguably not fulfill the requirements of Section 489-F for which the complainant must show (i) a clear intention of the drawer allowing the complainant to present and encash the cheque (through a specific endorsement) and also (ii) a liability owed by the drawer of the cheque towards the complainant. Otherwise, it will simply be a bearer cheque open for encashment by anyone to whom the drawer does not owe or might not intend to pay anything.

It is also declared that a „self‟ dishonoured cheque (even if the reference on the cheque to a bearer is not crossed) does not entitle a bearer to request for registration of a criminal case unless and until there is a positive endorsement in favour of the bearer either on the back of the cheque in question or by means of a separate document which would make the bearer a „holder in due course‟.

Writ Petition-Criminal Proceedings-Registration of Case
4190-21
NAVEED ISHAQ VS
JOP ETC
Mr. Justice Muhammad Shan Gul
21-12-2021
2021 LHC 7979

23/12/2025

JOINT KHATA 1
co-sharer could not file a suit for declaration and possession against the other co-sharer but a suit for partition could only be filed.
> 2016 YLR 1300
••••••
JOINT KHATA

Suit for possess - co sharer can not file a suit for declaration & possession against other co sharer

> 2016 YLR 1300
> 2003 MLD 484
••••
JOINT KHATA

Co sharer would be considered to be in possession of each and every inch of un-partitioned land according to his share.
> 2016 SCMR 910
> 2007 SCMR 1884
> 2005 SCMR 1335
> 1998 SCMR 1589
> 1994 PLD SC 336
> 1992 SCMR 138
> 1989 SCMR 130
••••••
JOINT KHATA
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--S.42---Suit for declaration---When share in the Khata has been transferred through mutation, then no question of transfer of specific property from joint Khata arises and if the purchasers are in possession of specific property, the remedy for the party lies anywhere else and a party cannot challenge the judgment and decree which has been passed in favour of that party.
> 2016 M L D 80
( Mst. BUSHRA BIBI CASE )

••••••••
(a) Co sharer Joint immovable property Co sharer's rights Extent of In case of joint immovable property, each co sharer deemed to be interested in every inch of subject matter irrespective of quantity of his interest One co sharer cannot be allowed to act in a manner which constitutes an invasion on the right of other co--sharer Co sharer in possession of a portion of joint property cannot change nature of property in his possession unless partition takes place by metes and bounds.
> 1989 S C M R 130
( ALI GOIIAR KHAN )
••••••

(b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)
5. 54 Perpetual injunction Construction on joint property without effecting partition Elect One co sharer being not entitled to change the nature of joint property in his possession, appellant as co sharer was found entitled to decree for perpetual injunction against respondent, till partition was effected in
> 1989 S C M R 130
•••••

(a) Co sharer
Joint possession Law of Limitation Application Question of a limitation does not arise in case of joint possession as co sharer.

> 2001 C L C 1431
> PLD 1994 SC 462
•••••

(d) Co-sharer-Sale by---Joint Khata---Agreement of sale not finding mention of delivery of possession of specific Khasra numbers 'to vendee out of joint Khata---Vendee alleging his exclusive possession over such specific Khasra numbers under agreement---Validity---When property was joint and not partitioned, then fact of such exclusive possession of vendee could not be believed---Every co-owner/co-sharer would be considered to be in 'possession of each inch of unpartitioned land according to his share.
> 2007 SCMR 1884

•••••

> 2006 YLR 856
Injunction against co-sharer cannot be issued because co-sharer had constructive possession in each inch in the property.
•••••

> 2006 YLR 828
Co-sharer who raises any construction on joint property without the consent of other co-sharer and without the permission of the court, is not entitled to any compensation and encroachment in value as such property is for common advantage of all the co-sharer
•••••

> 2006 MLD 435,
Interim injunction could not be issued in favour of one co-sharer against other co-sharer. All the construction made by one co-sharer would be at his own risk and cast in a suit for partition.
•••••

PLD 1998 SC 1509
In a joint khata, one co-sharer could not sale out trees standing there and further make a construction without due partition.
••••••

2006 MLD 442,
Co-sharer may protect his possession by way of injunction till regular partition.
••••••

2008 YLR 420,
Co-sharer in possession over joint property could not dispossessed accept through regular partition
••••••

2008 YLR 2454,
One co-sharer without consent of other co-sharer could not change nature of the suit property except through partition
••••••

> 2009 YLR 2454,
Every co-sharer had interest in each and every inch of joint property partitioned and could not be permitted to alter the character of property without consulting the other co-sharer
••••••
2010 C L C 285
ABDUL GHAFFAR-Versus-WAQAS HAFEEZ and others
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---O. ###IX, Rr.1 & 2---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.8---Suit for possession---Family partition---No nexus or connection with disputed land---Effect---Plaintiff filed suit for possession through partition along with an application for temporary injunction claiming therein that the plaintiff being co-sharer in the disputed property could not be deprived of use of his share as he was entitled to and had a proprietary interest in every inch of the undivided Khata---Defendants contested suit on the ground that as a result of family partition the defendants were in possession of the disputed land out of total land in joint Khata for the last 25 years and that the plaintiff had no nexus or connection with the said partition---Trial Court dismissed application for restraining order against defendant---Appellate Court on appeal also dismissed the same---Validity---Record revealed that the suit was at preliminary stage---Right of the plaintiff in the disputed land and its extent had yet to be determined by recording of evidence---Defendants were in exclusive possession of the disputed property for the past 25 years on the basis of family partition---Prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff was not clearly made out---Defendants had invested huge sums of money in construction of CNG Station and installation of equipment and machinery thereon---Order restraining defendants from operating the CNG Station would cause inconvenience to them more compared to the plaintiff who had no nexus or connection with the disputed land for the past 25 years---Loss, if any, would be calculated in monetary terms---Ingredient of irrepairable loss was missing in the suit---Plaintiff had failed to show any illegality or material irregularity committed by subordinate courts in exercise of jurisdiction vested in them---Petition was dismissed by High Court.

Muhammad Muzaffar Khan y. Muhammad Yusuf Khan PLD 1959 SC (Pak) 9; Shah Hussain v. Abdul Qayyum and others 1984 SCMR 427; Muhammad Sharif and 3 others v. Ghulam Hussain and another 1995 SCMR 514 and AmanUllah v. HameedUllah and others 2006 YLR 856 ref.

(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---O. ###IX, Rr.1 & 2---Injunctive relief-Equitable and discretionary in nature---All three ingredients have to be present at the same time---In case any one of the ingredients is missing, the court cannot grant temporary injunction.

(c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--S. 8-Suit for possession---Family partition---Co-sharer in possession in a Khata has a right to alienate a specific piece of land in his possession and the transferee acquires the same rights as the transferor.
•••••••

> 2009 SCMR 688,
> 2002/2001 CLC 71,
Co-sharer was dispossessed. He may recover possession by filing suit U/S 9 of Specific Relief Act or suit for partition
•••••

> 2011 MLD 1570,
Co-sharer in joint khata could not make construction without regular partition
••••••

> 2011 MLD 1548,
> 2011 MLD 1548,
Joint family property was privately partitioned according to report of bailiff.

Constructions were made at roof level. Permission to complete further construction was granted. Further construction would be at own risk and cast.
•••••

> 2011 MLD 1518,
> PLD 2012 Islamabad 68,
> 2012 CLC 1618
Co-sharer to protect his possession may file suit for permanent injunction until regular partition is effected
•••••

> PLJ 2012 SC (AJK) 182
Co-sharer in one khasra no would be a co-sharer in all khasra no and khata
•••••

> 2013 CLC 174
The possession of one co-sharer would be considered a possession on behalf of all co-sharer
•••••

PLD 2013 Peshawar 38
One co-sharer on the basis of possession could not take plea of adverse possession against other co-sharer
•••••

> 2013 MLD 1557
One co-sharer who is out of possession would be considered in possession on the principle of constructive possession
•••••

> 2013 CLC 711,
>?2008 YLR 420,
> PLD 1956 Pesh 96,
> PLD 1968 Dhaka 259,
> 2001 CLC 1211,
Simple suit for possession against co-sharer without relief of partition is not maintainable
•••••

> 2014 MLD 1116
Limitation would not run against co-sharer who is not in possession to file suit for possession against other co-sharer who is in possession.
•••••

> PLD 2014 Lahore 417
Property from one co-sharer maybe acquired through sale or gift but the same would be subject to regular partition and the new holder of title on the basis of sale etc could not established his own right beyond the right of original owner.
•••••

> 2008 YLR 420
One co-sharer against another co-sharer to recover possession of the suit property according to his respective share cannot file suit for possession rather co-sharer would file suit for partition.
•••••

> 1998 S C M R 1589
ABDUR REHMAN and 7 others-versuS-Sayed SULTAN ALI SHAH and 5 others
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--S.42---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Co-sharer in possession of joint Khata---Entitlement to retain possession till partition---Plaintiff's suit for declaration with perpetual injunction was dismissed by Trial Court---First Appellate Court, however, decreed plaintiff's suit while High Court set aside decree and judgment of First Appellate Court and restored judgment and decree of Trial Court whereby suit had been dismissed---Validity---Leave to appeal was granted to consider that "QabzaHissadari" having been transferred to plaintiff. they were entitled to remain in possession of land as co-sharers till such time as partition of Shamilat would take place; whether entries in "WajibulArz" showed that plaintiffs, as co-sharers, were entitled to bring land in question, under cultivation; and that plaintiffs being in physical possession of more than their shares, such fact was irrelevant to their right to remain in possession till partition of suit land.

(b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--S.42---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185---Plaintiff's possession in joint Khata over more area than their share in such Khata---Effect---First Appellate Court had rightly found that plaintiffs were entitled to keep whatever property they had reclaimed till partition of Shamilat land by metes and bounds would take place---High Court fell in error in modifying decree and judgment of First Appellate Court to the extent of plaintiffs' share in Shamilat land--¬Judgment and decree of High Court was set aside while that of First Appellate Court decreeing plaintiff's suit to the extent of their possession, was restored in circumstances.
•••••
NO STAY IN JOINT KHATA

> 2002 SCMR 1298
> 2004 MLD 1844
••••••JOINT KHATA 1
co-sharer could not file a suit for declaration and possession against the other co-sharer but a suit for partition could only be filed.
> 2016 YLR 1300
••••••
JOINT KHATA

Suit for possess - co sharer can not file a suit for declaration & possession against other co sharer

> 2016 YLR 1300
> 2003 MLD 484
••••
JOINT KHATA

Co sharer would be considered to be in possession of each and every inch of un-partitioned land according to his share.
> 2016 SCMR 910
> 2007 SCMR 1884
> 2005 SCMR 1335
> 1998 SCMR 1589
> 1994 PLD SC 336
> 1992 SCMR 138
> 1989 SCMR 130
••••••
JOINT KHATA
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--S.42---Suit for declaration---When share in the Khata has been transferred through mutation, then no question of transfer of specific property from joint Khata arises and if the purchasers are in possession of specific property, the remedy for the party lies anywhere else and a party cannot challenge the judgment and decree which has been passed in favour of that party.
> 2016 M L D 80
( Mst. BUSHRA BIBI CASE )

••••••••
(a) Co sharer Joint immovable property Co sharer's rights Extent of In case of joint immovable property, each co sharer deemed to be interested in every inch of subject matter irrespective of quantity of his interest One co sharer cannot be allowed to act in a manner which constitutes an invasion on the right of other co--sharer Co sharer in possession of a portion of joint property cannot change nature of property in his possession unless partition takes place by metes and bounds.
> 1989 S C M R 130
( ALI GOIIAR KHAN )
••••••

(b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)
5. 54 Perpetual injunction Construction on joint property without effecting partition Elect One co sharer being not entitled to change the nature of joint property in his possession, appellant as co sharer was found entitled to decree for perpetual injunction against respondent, till partition was effected in
> 1989 S C M R 130
•••••

(a) Co sharer
Joint possession Law of Limitation Application Question of a limitation does not arise in case of joint possession as co sharer.

> 2001 C L C 1431
> PLD 1994 SC 462
•••••

(d) Co-sharer-Sale by---Joint Khata---Agreement of sale not finding mention of delivery of possession of specific Khasra numbers 'to vendee out of joint Khata---Vendee alleging his exclusive possession over such specific Khasra numbers under agreement---Validity---When property was joint and not partitioned, then fact of such exclusive possession of vendee could not be believed---Every co-owner/co-sharer would be considered to be in 'possession of each inch of unpartitioned land according to his share.
> 2007 SCMR 1884

•••••

> 2006 YLR 856
Injunction against co-sharer cannot be issued because co-sharer had constructive possession in each inch in the property.
•••••

> 2006 YLR 828
Co-sharer who raises any construction on joint property without the consent of other co-sharer and without the permission of the court, is not entitled to any compensation and encroachment in value as such property is for common advantage of all the co-sharer
•••••

> 2006 MLD 435,
Interim injunction could not be issued in favour of one co-sharer against other co-sharer. All the construction made by one co-sharer would be at his own risk and cast in a suit for partition.
•••••

PLD 1998 SC 1509
In a joint khata, one co-sharer could not sale out trees standing there and further make a construction without due partition.
••••••

2006 MLD 442,
Co-sharer may protect his possession by way of injunction till regular partition.
••••••

2008 YLR 420,
Co-sharer in possession over joint property could not dispossessed accept through regular partition
••••••

2008 YLR 2454,
One co-sharer without consent of other co-sharer could not change nature of the suit property except through partition
••••••

> 2009 YLR 2454,
Every co-sharer had interest in each and every inch of joint property partitioned and could not be permitted to alter the character of property without consulting the other co-sharer
••••••
2010 C L C 285
ABDUL GHAFFAR-Versus-WAQAS HAFEEZ and others
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---O. ###IX, Rr.1 & 2---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.8---Suit for possession---Family partition---No nexus or connection with disputed land---Effect---Plaintiff filed suit for possession through partition along with an application for temporary injunction claiming therein that the plaintiff being co-sharer in the disputed property could not be deprived of use of his share as he was entitled to and had a proprietary interest in every inch of the undivided Khata---Defendants contested suit on the ground that as a result of family partition the defendants were in possession of the disputed land out of total land in joint Khata for the last 25 years and that the plaintiff had no nexus or connection with the said partition---Trial Court dismissed application for restraining order against defendant---Appellate Court on appeal also dismissed the same---Validity---Record revealed that the suit was at preliminary stage---Right of the plaintiff in the disputed land and its extent had yet to be determined by recording of evidence---Defendants were in exclusive possession of the disputed property for the past 25 years on the basis of family partition---Prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff was not clearly made out---Defendants had invested huge sums of money in construction of CNG Station and installation of equipment and machinery thereon---Order restraining defendants from operating the CNG Station would cause inconvenience to them more compared to the plaintiff who had no nexus or connection with the disputed land for the past 25 years---Loss, if any, would be calculated in monetary terms---Ingredient of irrepairable loss was missing in the suit---Plaintiff had failed to show any illegality or material irregularity committed by subordinate courts in exercise of jurisdiction vested in them---Petition was dismissed by High Court.

Muhammad Muzaffar Khan y. Muhammad Yusuf Khan PLD 1959 SC (Pak) 9; Shah Hussain v. Abdul Qayyum and others 1984 SCMR 427; Muhammad Sharif and 3 others v. Ghulam Hussain and another 1995 SCMR 514 and AmanUllah v. HameedUllah and others 2006 YLR 856 ref.

(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---O. ###IX, Rr.1 & 2---Injunctive relief-Equitable and discretionary in nature---All three ingredients have to be present at the same time---In case any one of the ingredients is missing, the court cannot grant temporary injunction.

(c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--S. 8-Suit for possession---Family partition---Co-sharer in possession in a Khata has a right to alienate a specific piece of land in his possession and the transferee acquires the same rights as the transferor.
•••••••

> 2009 SCMR 688,
> 2002/2001 CLC 71,
Co-sharer was dispossessed. He may recover possession by filing suit U/S 9 of Specific Relief Act or suit for partition
•••••

> 2011 MLD 1570,
Co-sharer in joint khata could not make construction without regular partition
••••••

> 2011 MLD 1548,
> 2011 MLD 1548,
Joint family property was privately partitioned according to report of bailiff.

Constructions were made at roof level. Permission to complete further construction was granted. Further construction would be at own risk and cast.
•••••

> 2011 MLD 1518,
> PLD 2012 Islamabad 68,
> 2012 CLC 1618
Co-sharer to protect his possession may file suit for permanent injunction until regular partition is effected
•••••

> PLJ 2012 SC (AJK) 182
Co-sharer in one khasra no would be a co-sharer in all khasra no and khata
•••••

> 2013 CLC 174
The possession of one co-sharer would be considered a possession on behalf of all co-sharer
•••••

PLD 2013 Peshawar 38
One co-sharer on the basis of possession could not take plea of adverse possession against other co-sharer
•••••

> 2013 MLD 1557
One co-sharer who is out of possession would be considered in possession on the principle of constructive possession
•••••

> 2013 CLC 711,
>?2008 YLR 420,
> PLD 1956 Pesh 96,
> PLD 1968 Dhaka 259,
> 2001 CLC 1211,
Simple suit for possession against co-sharer without relief of partition is not maintainable
•••••

> 2014 MLD 1116
Limitation would not run against co-sharer who is not in possession to file suit for possession against other co-sharer who is in possession.
•••••

> PLD 2014 Lahore 417
Property from one co-sharer maybe acquired through sale or gift but the same would be subject to regular partition and the new holder of title on the basis of sale etc could not established his own right beyond the right of original owner.
•••••

> 2008 YLR 420
One co-sharer against another co-sharer to recover possession of the suit property according to his respective share cannot file suit for possession rather co-sharer would file suit for partition.
•••••

> 1998 S C M R 1589
ABDUR REHMAN and 7 others-versuS-Sayed SULTAN ALI SHAH and 5 others
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--S.42---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Co-sharer in possession of joint Khata---Entitlement to retain possession till partition---Plaintiff's suit for declaration with perpetual injunction was dismissed by Trial Court---First Appellate Court, however, decreed plaintiff's suit while High Court set aside decree and judgment of First Appellate Court and restored judgment and decree of Trial Court whereby suit had been dismissed---Validity---Leave to appeal was granted to consider that "QabzaHissadari" having been transferred to plaintiff. they were entitled to remain in possession of land as co-sharers till such time as partition of Shamilat would take place; whether entries in "WajibulArz" showed that plaintiffs, as co-sharers, were entitled to bring land in question, under cultivation; and that plaintiffs being in physical possession of more than their shares, such fact was irrelevant to their right to remain in possession till partition of suit land.

(b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--S.42---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185---Plaintiff's possession in joint Khata over more area than their share in such Khata---Effect---First Appellate Court had rightly found that plaintiffs were entitled to keep whatever property they had reclaimed till partition of Shamilat land by metes and bounds would take place---High Court fell in error in modifying decree and judgment of First Appellate Court to the extent of plaintiffs' share in Shamilat land--¬Judgment and decree of High Court was set aside while that of First Appellate Court decreeing plaintiff's suit to the extent of their possession, was restored in circumstances.
•••••
NO STAY IN JOINT KHATA

> 2002 SCMR 1298
> 2004 MLD 1844
••••••

Legal Decisions

29/01/2026

28/01/2026

25/01/2026

25/01/2026

23/01/2026

29/12/2025

25/12/2025

23/12/2025

Address

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share