HASNAIN Vs. MURTAZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision by defendant no. 5 is directed against the order dated 18.6.99 and the subsequent orders rejecting his petition objecting to the proposed carving out of the shares of defendant nos. 1, 6 and 7 in a final decree proceeding.

(2.) THE plaintiff -opposite party no. 10 Md. Umar filed Partition Suit No. 165 of 1983 for partition of his 829/6470 share in the joint family properties. A preliminary decree defining the plaintiff 's share alone was passed on 9.4.85. The properties, thus, remained joint with the defendants. Appeal (F.A. No. 178 of 1986) preferred in this Court against the preliminary decree was dismissed in default. Final decree was thereafter prepared on 27.4.88. In course of time delivery of possession through process of court was also effected and the plaintiff was put in possession of the lands allotted to him. Defendant no. 5, it appears, filed Partition Suit No. 330 of 1994 for partition of his share, which was dismissed. Appeal (Title Appeal No. 47 of 1997) is said to be pending before the District Judge.

(3.) THE same argument, as was advanced on behalf of the petitioner in the previous civil revision, has been made, that is, the final decree having been passed in the suit the court has no jurisdiction to carve out separate shares or pattis of defendant nos. 1, 6 and 7. Frontal reliance has been placed on the case of Phoolchand vs. Gopal Lal (supra).