Ghulam Rasool v. Nasrullah,
CLC 2010 1138 · Balochistan High Court
This case involved a family land dispute in Pishin, Balochistan. The plaintiffs (respondents in this appeal) sued their relatives for declaration of ownership, possession, cancellation of certain mutation (land record) entries, partition of jointly owned agricultural land, and a permanent injunction against interference. They claimed specific ownership shares in land that had been jointly purchased decades earlier, and argued that a mutation entry reducing their predecessor's share was fraudulent.
The defendants argued that the parties had already carried out a private partition of the land about 22 years earlier, with each side possessing and cultivating its own separate portion, including installing water boring and developing orchards.
The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting the declarations sought and also ordering a fresh partition of the property by the authorities.
On appeal, the High Court rejected the defendants' complaint that the trial court had framed improper issues, noting they never objected to the issues during trial and could not now specify what better issues should have been framed.
However, the High Court agreed with the defendants on one key point: the trial court had contradicted itself. It had found that a private partition had already taken place and that both sides were already in separate possession of their respective shares—yet it still ordered a new partition, which was inconsistent with that finding.
The High Court therefore upheld the rest of the judgment but struck down the order for fresh partition, since one had already occurred privately. This shows courts will correct internally inconsistent rulings even while largely upholding a lower court's decision.
یہ مقدمہ پشین، بلوچستان میں خاندانی اراضی کے تنازع سے متعلق تھا۔ مدعیان (اس اپیل میں مدعا علیہان) نے اپنے رشتہ داروں کے خلاف مالکانہ حقوق اور قبضے کے اعلان، بعض انتقال (زمین کے ریکارڈ) کے اندراجات کی منسوخی، مشترکہ زرعی اراضی کی تقسیم، اور مداخلت کے خلاف مستقل حکمِ امتناعی کے لیے دعویٰ دائر کیا تھا۔ انہوں نے اس زمین میں مخصوص ملکیتی حصوں کا دعویٰ کیا جو دہائیوں پہلے مشترکہ طور پر خریدی گئی تھی، اور مؤقف اختیار کیا کہ ان کے مورث کے حصے کو کم کرنے والا انتقال کا اندراج جعلی تھا۔
مدعا علیہان نے دلیل دی کہ فریقین تقریباً بائیس سال پہلے ہی زمین کی نجی طور پر تقسیم کر چکے تھے، اور ہر فریق اپنے اپنے حصے پر قابض تھا اور کاشت کر رہا تھا، جس میں پانی کی بورنگ لگانا اور باغات کی تیاری بھی شامل تھی۔
ٹرائل کورٹ نے مدعیان کے حق میں فیصلہ دیا، مطلوبہ اعلانات جاری کیے اور ساتھ ہی حکام کی جانب سے جائیداد کی نئے سرے سے تقسیم کا حکم