Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2019 CLC 211

    Uploaded by

    Asif Nawaz
    42 views6 pages
    1) A suit was filed by the plaintiff challenging a gift deed executed in favor of her daughter relating to a property. The plaintiff passed away during the pendency of the suit and her other legal heirs were impleaded. 2) During the pendency of the suit, the High Court passed a preliminary decree appointing a Nazir as Administrator to sell the property, with the defendant's share to be paid according to Sharia and the remaining share of other legal heirs to be invested. 3) The appellants, legal heirs of the plaintiff other than the defendant, argued the decree was contrary to law as the suit was neither for administration nor partition. The decree would dissipate the subject matter of the suit.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) A suit was filed by the plaintiff challenging a gift deed executed in favor of her daughter relating to a property. The plaintiff passed away during the pendency of the suit and her other legal heirs were impleaded. 2) During the pendency of the suit, the High Court passed a preliminary decree appointing a Nazir as Administrator to sell the property, with the defendant's share to be paid according to Sharia and the remaining share of other legal heirs to be invested. 3) The appellants, legal heirs of the plaintiff other than the defendant, argued the decree was contrary to law as the suit was neither for administration nor partition. The decree would dissipate the subject matter of the suit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    42 views6 pages

    2019 CLC 211

    Uploaded by

    Asif Nawaz
    1) A suit was filed by the plaintiff challenging a gift deed executed in favor of her daughter relating to a property. The plaintiff passed away during the pendency of the suit and her other legal heirs were impleaded. 2) During the pendency of the suit, the High Court passed a preliminary decree appointing a Nazir as Administrator to sell the property, with the defendant's share to be paid according to Sharia and the remaining share of other legal heirs to be invested. 3) The appellants, legal heirs of the plaintiff other than the defendant, argued the decree was contrary to law as the suit was neither for administration nor partition. The decree would dissipate the subject matter of the suit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 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