1989 PLP 1430 (SCMR)
RAHAM DIN and others Petitioners Versus Mst. FATIMA BIBI Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1430 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | RAHAM DIN and others Petitioners Versus Mst. FATIMA BIBI Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1430 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1430 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1430 (SCMR) (RAHAM DIN and others Petitioners Versus Mst. FATIMA BIBI Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- C.M. Latif Rawn, Advocate Supreme Cburt with Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 21st March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the Judgment, dated 30‑1‑1985 of Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No. 151/D/1985). ‑‑‑O.VII, R.11‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Petitioners claimed to be the collaterals of deceased in the fourth and fifth degree‑‑Mutation of inheritance was attested in 1953 while petitioners brought a suit claiming share in the property in 1979‑‑Trial Court rejected plaint of the petitioners under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C.‑‑Appeal and revision of the petitioners against such order were also dismissed‑‑Supreme Court refused leave to appeal with the observations that petitioners kept quiet for more than 26 years before raising their claim in the inheritance of deceased, they could if they had so wished, take up the matter before the Rehabilitation and Settlement Authorities, and if they had done so, their claim would have been considered on merits.
Judgment & Decree
SAAR SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑One Allauddin died in India leaving behind some agricultural property. He was survived by a widow, Mst. Bassan. and a daughter Mst. Fatima Bibs. On.8‑1‑1953, a mutation of inheritance was attested. According to the mutation, Mst. Bassan was entitled to 1/8th share and the respondent to 7/8th share in the estate of Allauddin. Consequently, allotments were made in their favour in that proportion. Subsequently, Mst. Bassan also died and her share was also mutated in favour of the respondent. The petitioners claim to be the collaterals 9f Allauddin in the fourth and fifth degree. In 1979, they brought a suit claiming a share in the property of Allauddm. The trial Court rejected their plaint under Rule 11 of Order VII, Civil Procedure Code. They filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge. They then filed a revision petition in the High Court but this too met with no success. They now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, we do not think that this is a fit case where leave should be granted they kept quiet for more A than 26 years before raising their claim in the inheritance of Allauddin. They could, if they wished, take up the matter before the Re‑habilitation and Re settlement authorities. Had they done so, their claim would have been considered on merits. We would accordingly dismiss this petition. M.B.A./R‑88/S Petition dismissed.