P L D 1959 W (PLP)
GHULAM MUHAMMAD and others‑Petitioners Versus Mst. NOOR ILAHI‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1959 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | GHULAM MUHAMMAD and others‑Petitioners Versus Mst. NOOR ILAHI‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Mutation‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1959 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Mutation‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1959 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: H. A. Majid, 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 1959 W (PLP) (GHULAM MUHAMMAD and others‑Petitioners Versus Mst. NOOR ILAHI‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hussain Muhammad Naqvi for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
Collaterals producing divorce deed against widow, executed a few days before death of deceased‑‑Collaterals referred to Civil Court to establish right to inheritance to exclusion of widow.
Judgment & Decree
Hussain Muhammad Naqvi for Petitioners. He has invited my attention to the decision of the Lahore High Court in Mst. Lalan Bibi v. Muhammad Ashfaq cited as (P L D 1951 Lah. 467), in which it has been stated that the weight of authority is in favour of the view that the validity of `Talaq‑ul‑Bain' (irrevocable divorce) is not affected by the failure of the husband to com municate it to his wife. The above argument may be adequate for issuing notice to the other party or for giving the petitioners a prima facie benefit in the mutations of inheritance to the property left by Jan Muhammad deceased. There is, however; a certain amount of doubt relating to the validity of the `Talaqnama' on which the petitioners base their claim. This `Talaqnama' was ostensibly recorded on the 21st May, 1954. The petitioners' case is that Jan Muhammad died six months before 21‑6‑55, i.e. the date on which they reported to GI the Patwari. This means that the death took place in January, 1955, or thereabout. The Mutation Officer was informed by Ghulam Muhammad (an alleged witness of the `Talaqnama', that the `Talaqnama' was executed eight days before the death of the deceased. The Commissioner has mentioned in his judgment that the deceased had been married to his wife for 40 years and that the lady was now a decrepit old woman (aged more than 60 or even 70 years). It seems highly improbable that the deceased should want to divorce her a short while before his death. There is, thus, a possibility that the `Talaqnama' is a fictitious document prepared in an effort to cause financial loss to the widow (Mst. Nur Elahi respondent). In the above circumstances, if the petitioners, who are the collaterals of the deceased, are still anxious that Mst. Nur Elahi should not inherit any share in the legacy as a widow, I think their remedy lies in a competent Civil Court. I, therefore, A decline to interfere in revision. The three petitions for revision will be considered to have been dismissed. A. H. Petitions dismissed.