2005 PLP 1281 (SCMR)
KHAN MUHAMMAD and others — Petitioners Versus GHULAM FARID through L.Rs. and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1281 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Actg. C.J. Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, JJ |
| Parties | KHAN MUHAMMAD and others — Petitioners Versus GHULAM FARID through L.Rs. and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (V of 1962) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1281 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (V of 1962) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1281 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Actg. C.J. Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1281 (SCMR) (KHAN MUHAMMAD and others — Petitioners Versus GHULAM FARID through L.Rs. and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Anwar Bhinder, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- Mian Abbas Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Ozair Chughtai, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th January, 2005.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 14-3-2002 passed by Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur in Civil Revision No.90/D of 1987).
S. 2-A
Death of last male heir in year 1947
Death of daughter proved to have taken place after death of her father (last male heir)
Effect
Parties would not be governed by custom
Property of last male heir would be divided according to Injunctions of Islam
Principles illustrated.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, ACTG. C.J.
Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment dated 14-3-2002 passed by Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench.
2. In this case the dispute between the parties relates to the legacy of Ghulam Muhammad who had died according to the petitioners issueless because his daughter namely Mst. Nourai had died during his life time, therefore, according to Riwaj they being his collaterals are entitled for the property left by former. Whereas on the other hand the claim of the respondent is that they are the legal heirs of Mst. Nourai, daughter of Ghulam Muhammad who was alive at the time of death of her father and died subsequent to the death of her mother Mst. Ghulam Fatima, therefore, is their legacy would not be governed according to Riwaj. Learned trial Court decreed the suit and the said judgment was maintained in appeal by. Additional District Judge-III, Bahawalpur. Learned High Court accepted the revision petition filed by the respondents vide the impugned judgment. As such instant petition has been filed for leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial and Appellate Courts have been wrongly interfered by the High Court, therefore, impugned judgment deserves to be set aside.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the caveator contended that learned High Court after properly appreciating the material on record has rightly interfered in the judgments and decrees of the Courts. He read the evidence available on record particularly the statement of P.W.2 Fazil son of Qutab Din.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned judgment and evidence available on record including the statement of P.W.2 Fazil son of Qutab Din who had appeared on behalf of the petitioners. Relevant extract from his statement is reproduced herein-below;-- Urdu Para Page 1282 A perusal of the statement of the above witness shows that Mst: Nourai died after the death of Ghulam Muhammad. This aspect of the case was not taken into consideration by the two Courts below, therefore, the High Court on having gone it as well as the contents of Exh.P/1 i.e. Wajib-ul-Arz had rightly concluded that the parties will not be governed by the Riwaj and property of Ghulam Muhammad will be divided according to the Inunctions of Islam. Since the impugned judgment is passed after scanning the evidence produced by the parties and on noting the misreading of evidence has rightly interfered in the judgments of the trial and Appellate Courts. Therefore, no interference is called for in the instant proceedings. Thus, for the foregoing reasons the petition is dismissed and leave declined. S.A.K./K-30/S Leave refused.