1991 PLP 365 (SCMR)
Mst. ALI BEGUM and others — Petitioners Versus SABIR HUSSAIN and 13 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 365 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. ALI BEGUM and others — Petitioners Versus SABIR HUSSAIN and 13 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 365 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 365 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 365 (SCMR) (Mst. ALI BEGUM and others — Petitioners Versus SABIR HUSSAIN and 13 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 22nd October, 1.989.
- Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 24-4-1989 in R.SA. No. 388 of 1970).
Art. 185(3)
Leave to appeal was granted to consider contention whether concurrent findings of fact recorded by Trial Court and Appellate Court below, could not be called in question by High Court in second appeal, even if same were erroneous. Abdul Majid and others v. Khalil Ahmad PLD 1955 FC 38 ref.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, arises out of a suit filed by respondents 1 and 2 against petitioners for possession of suit‑land which originally belonged to the common ancestor Abbas Khan who died on 1‑2‑1920. The deceased left surviving his widow Mst. Dewan Bi and his daughter Mst. Ali Begum. The land was mutated in favour of his widow list. Dewan Bi who died on 6‑1‑1965, but during her life time she made a gift of land in favour of petitioners, her grandsons (children of Mst. Ali Begum). Respondents 1 and 2 collaterals of the deceased Abbas Khan filed a suit claiming three‑eighth share of the estate, and the main question that arose for consideration was whether Abbas Khan deceased was a Shia by faith and thus Mst. Ali Begum was the sole heir. Learned trial Judge held that Abbas Khan deceased was a Shia and dismissed the suit and the learned District Judge on appeal upheld this finding but the High Court on a second appeal reversed the finding of the two Courts below and dismissed the suit. Mr. Bashir Ahmad Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, submits with reference to Abdul Majid and others v. Khalil Ahmad P L D 1955 FC 38 and other cases that High Court failed to appreciate that the concurrent findings of fact cannot be called in question in a Second Appeal even if the same are erroneous. The aforesaid point, amongst others deserves consideration. We, therefore, grant leave to appeal and allow the petition. Security Rs.5,
000. Appeal will be heard on the present record but it is open to the parties to file additional documents, if any. H.B.T./A‑665/S Leave granted.