2003 PLP 1212 (SCMR)
NIAZ KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus KISHWAR SULTANA — Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1212 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tanvir Ahmed Khan, Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | NIAZ KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus KISHWAR SULTANA — Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1212 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1212 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tanvir Ahmed Khan, Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1212 (SCMR) (NIAZ KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus KISHWAR SULTANA — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.G. Tariq Chaudri, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 23rd April, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 5-12-2001 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No.781 of 1999).
S. 45
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Mutation of inheritance, assailing of
Entitlement of co-owner to inherit
Relationship of plaintiff with deceased owner, determination of
Concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below
Plaintiff assailed the mutation of inheritance on the ground that she was the real daughter of the deceased owner
Defendants denied the relationship and the suit was dismissed by the Trial Court on the point of limitation
Appellate Court allowed the appeal and the suit was decreed
High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by Appellate Court
All the Courts below recorded concurrent findings of fact that the plaintiff was real daughter of the deceased and was entitled to inherit the property of her father-- Appellate Court as well as High Court had rightly recorded the findings of fact that the suit of plaintiff being that of a co-owner of land was within time
Findings of fact recorded by the Courts below did not suffer from any legal infirmity
No substantial question of law of importance was involved in the case
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.
Leave to appeal is sought against judgment, dated 5-12-2001 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No.781 of 1991.
2. Mst. Kishwar Sultana, the respondent No. 1 filed a suit to call in question validity of Mutation No. 127 of 1997 of inheritance sanctioned on 19-11-1957 on the ground that she was daughter of Cheragh Din deceased and his widow Mst. Wazir Begum, the petitioner No.4 and real sister of the other petitioners and was, therefore, entitled to inherit the share of the property of her deceased father. The petitioners denied their relationship with the respondent No.
1. The suit of the respondent No. 1 was dismissed by the Civil Court, Sheikhupura on 8-11-1987 on the issue of limitation. The appeal of the respondent No.1 was accepted on 7-4-1991 and the suit was decreed by the Additional District Judge. The. Civil Revision No.781 of 1991 filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the impugned judgment o the Lahore High Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the relationship of the respondent No. 1 with Cheragh Din deceased had not been proved. Even in the absence of any cross objections the petitioners were entitled to question the legality of the findings of the Civil Court on other issues during the course of hearing of the appeal. The suit of the respondent No. 1 was hit by the principles of res judicata as she had earlier filed a similar suit. It was lastly contended that the suit of the respondent No. 1 was hopelessly time-barred.
4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. All the Courts recorded concurrent findings of fact that the respondent No. 1 was real daughter of Cheragh Din deceased and was, therefore, entitled to inherit the property of her father. The Appellate Court as well as the High Court also recorded findings of fact that the suit of respondent No. 1 being that of a co-owner of the land was within time. There is nothing on record to show that the respondent No. 1 had filed any earlier suit against the petitioners for the same relief and cause of action between the same parties and that the same was dismissed on merits. The findings of fact recorded by the Courts do not suffer from any legal infirmity. No substantial question of law of public importance is involved in this case.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this petition for leave to appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. M.H./N-86/S Petition dismissed.