2005 PLP 1864 (SCMR)
SHER and another — Petitioners Versus Mst. FATIMA through L.Rs. and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1864 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Falak Sher, JJ |
| Parties | SHER and another — Petitioners Versus Mst. FATIMA through L.Rs. and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1864 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1864 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Falak Sher, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1864 (SCMR) (SHER and another — Petitioners Versus Mst. FATIMA through L.Rs. and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zafar Iqbal Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 4th May, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 25-10-2000 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No.949 of 1985).
S.42
Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (Punjab Amendment) Ordinance (XIII of 1983), S.2-A
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Limited estate
Entitlement to shares
Plaintiffs assailed mutation of inheritance in favour of defendants who were daughters of last male owner
Owner of suit-land died without any male issue and his land was mutated in year, 1934, in favour of his widow as limited estate
As the widow re-married, the suit-land was mutated in favour of two daughters in year, 1935
Plaintiffs being collaterals claimed to be the owners on the ground that the suit-land could not be mutated in favour of the daughters because they got married
Trial Court decreed the suit and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was maintained by Appellate Court
High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below on the ground that the daughters were entitled to their respective share, under the Sharia, in the property in question left behind by the deceased owner
Mutation in favour of the daughters was continued as such till the filing of the suit which was filed about 43 years after the sanctioning of disputed mutation and that in the circumstances the matter could not be treated as a closed transaction in view of S.2-A, of Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (Punjab Amendment) Ordinance, 1983
Widow and the two daughters of the deceased owner were entitled to their Sharai shares in the suit-land and remaining land was to go to the collaterals in their respective shares
No infirmity legal or factual could be shown in the judgment. passed by High Court which could entitle the plaintiffs, who wanted to deprive the defendants of their Sharai shares guaranteed to them by Islam
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.
One Muhammad was owner of some land in Chak No.466/GB Tehsil Chiniot. On his death the entire land belonging to him was mutated in the name of his widow, namely Mst. Roshnai as a limited estate and when the said widow re-married in the year 1934, the said piece of land was mutated in favour of her two daughters, naively, Mst. Fatima and Mst. Fateh through Mutation No.199 dated 23-2-1935. Claiming to be the collaterals of the above-mentioned Muhammad who was the last male owner, Sher and Gama filed a suit on 31-7-1976 Seeking a declaration that the said Mutation No. 199 was illegal; that Mst. Fatima and Mst. Fateh daughters of the last male owner were not entitled to any share in the estate left behind by Muhammad because they had got married and that they were the ones who were; thus, entitled to the whole of the said land left behind by the said Muhammad. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Judge which judgment and decree was maintained by the Appellate Court which led the widow and the two daughters of the last male owner, namely Muhammad to the High Court with Civil Revision No.949 of 1985 which was allowed through the judgment being impugned before us.
2. In respect of another piece of land left behind by the said Muhammad a Mutation bearing No.127 was entered in the year, 1934 mutating the whole of the said land in favour of the collaterals of the last male owner, namely, Sher and Gama. The above-mentioned two daughters of Muhammad namely Mst. Fateh and Mst. Fatima filed a suit on 31-11-1980 claiming that the said mutation had been secured by concealment of the fact that the said Muhammad had been survived by a widow and two daughters. This suit was dismissed and same was the fate met by the appeal filed by the said daughters of Muhammad. They then approached the Lahore High Court through Civil Revision No.100 of 1991 which was also dismissed by the learned High Court. This piece of land or this judgment rendered in Civil Revision No.100 of 1991 are, however, not the subject-matter of this petition before us bearing C.P. No.231-L of 2001.
3. Sher and his brother Gama have, however, impugned a judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 25-10-2000 whereby Civil Revision No.949 of 1985 filed by the present respondents was allowed.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have also gone through the record in the light of the submission made by him.
5. The learned Judge in Chambers had found the respondents entitled to their respective shares, under the Sharia, in the property in-question left behind by Muhammad on the ground that the Mutation No. 199 was continued as such till the filing of the suit which was filed about 43 years after the sanctioning of the said mutation and that in the circumstances the matter could not be treated as a closed transaction in view of section 2-A, of the Ordinance, XIII of 1983. It was consequently found that the widow and the two daughters of Muhammad were entitled to their Sharai shares in the said piece of land belonging the Muhammad and that the remaining land was, however, to go to the collaterals in their respective shares.
6. No infirmity legal or factual, could be shown in the impugned judgment which could entitle the petitioners, who want to deprive the respondents of their Sharai shares, guaranteed to them by the Allah Almighty, to the grant of leave. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Leave refused. M.H./S-42/S Petition dismissed.