MUSHTAQ AHMED vs FOUZIA NAWAZ Ss — 2025 PLD 60 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUSHTAQ AHMED VS FOUZIA NAWAZ Ss.42, 8 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12(2) & O.VII, R.2---Suit for declaration, partition, possession, rendition of accounts, mesne profit and permanent injunction---Possession of the property by other successors---Admission as to right of legacy of respondent/ plaintiff except mesne profit---Claim of mesne profit by co-sharer---Scope---There was admission as to right of share of respondent in the legacy left by the predecessor, however, only decree of mesne profit was assailed as the courts below did not determine the mesne profit specifically---Validity---Mesne profits are typically granted to a person, who has been dispossessed of a property by someone through wrongful possession as defined under S.12(2) of C.P.C., however, as a general rule one co-sharer cannot claim mesne profit against other co-sharer in possession of a joint property on the principle that every co-sharer is deemed to have lawful right on every bit of such property unless severance takes place, but an exception arises, when a co-sharer in possession excludes or ousts the others, thereby depriving them of their rightful share of the property's benefits, profits and rents---Right of share of respondent in the legacy left behind by her predecessor had not been disputed, except assailing the decree of mesne profit---Evidence on record entitled respondent No.1 and other legal heirs of the predecessor to have share in the legacy left by him, which had rightly been appreciated by the Trial Court with reasons and upheld by the Appellate Court. which required no interference except to the extent of mesne profit---Admittedly respondent was living with petitioners and her expenses were also borne by them---Trial Court while deciding the matter had not specifically determined and calculated the mesne profit due thereof, thus, the decree was not executable---Decree to the extent of mesne profit could not be altered and amended because the decree had neither been challenged by respondent or any other legal heir nor cross objections thereof had been filed by them---High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction partially allowed the civil revision by maintaining the judgments and decrees, however, decree to the extent of mesne profit was set aside.

MUSHTAQ AHMED vs FOUZIA NAWAZ Ss — 2025 PLD 60 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD