P L D 1966 W (PLP)
SHER ZAMAN ETC.‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SHAH, ETC‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | SHER ZAMAN ETC.‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SHAH, ETC‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1966 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1966 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1966 W (PLP) (SHER ZAMAN ETC.‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SHAH, ETC‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- F. M Anwari for Petitioners.
- Malik Muhammad Jafar for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat), Application Act (V of 1962), S. 5 ‑ Succession governed by Shariat on death of widow‑West Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (IX of 1948), S. 3.
Judgment & Decree
F. M Anwari for Petitioners. Malik Muhammad Jafar for Respondents. This is a revision filed against an order dated the 3rd of April 1964, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Rawalpindi, whereby the second appeal preferred by the respondents was accepted. Briefly the facts of the case are that the last male‑holder, Mr. Khurshid died in 1912 and his widow Mst. Ashraf Khatun died in 1962. Khurshid had two other brothers, namely, Shah Zaman and Ghulam Yahya. Shah Zaman died in 1908 and Ghulam Yahya on the 30th September 1940. When Mst. Ashraf Khatun died, a mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in favour of Muhammad Shah and Muhammad Zaman, respondents, sons of Ghulam Yahya. The petitioners. Sher Zaman and Abdul Rehman sons of Shah Zaman who had pre‑deceased Khurshid, were ignored. The petitioners, went in appeal to the Collector, who accepted the appeal. The respondents then put in a second appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), who accepted it. The petitioners have come up in revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. He has contended that succession would be governed by Customary Law. I am afraid I cannot accept this contention. If Mst. Ashraf Khatun died after the enforcement of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act, 1962, which came in force on the 31st December 1962, succession would be governed by section 5 of this Act. Even if it is presumed that she died before the enforcement of this Act, succession would be governed by section 3 of the West Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1948. In that case succession would be deemed to have opened in 1912 when Khurshid died. All heirs, who were alive on that date, will be entitled to it. But if any such heir has died in the meanwhile his successors would inherit the property. In 1912 only Ghulam Yahya was alive but Shah Zaman had died four years earlier. Neither Shah Zaman nor his heirs are, therefore; entitled to inherit the property. But as Ghulam Yahya was alive in 1912, his sons will inherit the property along with the brother of Mst. Ashraf Khatun. In the circumstances, the order passed by the Assistant Collector and ultimately confirmed by the learned Additional Commissioner should stand and should be implemented. The revision, therefore, fails and is dismissed hereby. K. M. A. Revision dismissed.