Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

2019 CLC 211

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 6

2019] Suriya Iqbal Chishti V.

Rubina Majidullah 211


(Agha Faisal, J)
2019 C L C 211

[Sindh]

Before Muhammad Ali Mazhar and


Agha Faisal, JJ '

Mst. SURIYA IQBAL CHISHTI


e and another—Appellants

r) versus
a Mst. RUBINA MAJIDULLAH
Df.
and others—Respondents
to
fig High Court Appeal No. 173 of ^018, decided on 24th December, 2018.
ch
,ed Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)—
an
ing -—O. XX, R. 18(2)—Gift deed, cancellation of—^Conflicting claims of
the legal heirs—Preliminary decree for sale of subject property passed in
the terms of O, XX, R. 18(2), C.P.C, during penrdency of suit challenging
a gift deed relating to the same property—Legality—Suit for
declaration, cancellation of documents, mandatory injunction and
damages was preferred by plaintiff-mother, whereby she challenged a
>LD gift deed relating to subject property allegedly executed in favour of her
daughter (uthe defendant”)—Other legal heirs of the plaintiff were not
impleaded in the said suit—Plaintiff passed away during pendency
hers
of the suit and her other legal heirs were impleaded as parties to the
suit—During the pendency of the suit the Single Judge of the High
Court passed a preliminary decree in terms of O. XX, R. 18(2), C. Pt. C.
(“impugned order”) whereby a Nazir was appointed as Administrator in
jr on respect of the subject property with the mandate to carry out the sale of
not .
A the property, where-after, the share to the extent of defendant was to be
)id or paid per sharia and remaining share of other legal heirs was to be
oner, i invested in some government profit bearing instrument until further
5 was orders—Plea of appellants(legal heirs of plaintiff other than the
r, but defendant) that impugned order was prima facie, in contradiction to the
very provision of the law under which it was purported to have been
:iected rendered as the proceedings in the suit were neither in nature of a suit
order/ for administration nor a suit for partition, and that the impugned
Civil order, inter alia, would amount to a dissipation of the subject matter of
the suit and hence could not be permitted to perpetuate in good
conscience—Validity—Unity of title and possession must exist between
Hissed. the parties impleaded in a suit for partition qua the property sought to
be partitioned—If anyone impleaded in the suit claimed a paramount
title in the property then the same would defeat the unity of title,
CLC

You might also like