2007 PLP 1910 (MLD)
KARAMAT and others — Petitioners Versus FAZAL AHMED and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1910 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KARAMAT and others — Petitioners Versus FAZAL AHMED and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1910 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 1910 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1910 (MLD) (KARAMAT and others — Petitioners Versus FAZAL AHMED and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Nazir Hussain for Petitioners.
- Ch, Muhammad Anwar for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 42
Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 64
Original owner of suit property having died, inheritance mutation in respect of his property was sanctioned in favour of his eight soils and two daughters
After more than 42 years of said mutations, two sons of deceased who had already received their shares in the inheritance along with their six other brothers and two sisters, filed suit for declaration, on the ground that their deceased father had also another daughter, who was deprived of inheritance
Said alleged daughter of deceased or her legal heirs, neither filed suit nor had expressed any grievance against inheritance mutation sanctioned more than 42 years back in favour of eight sons acid two daughters of deceased
Each of them had failed to appear in the Court to assert that deceased had also a daughter other than two daughters--Said two sons of deceased/plaintiff, had only produced unconnected persons as witnesses, who did not possess even qualification required by Art.64 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 to prove deceased had another daughter as was claimed by plaintiffs
Plaintiffs themselves were also estopped by their conduct from calling iii question inheritance mutation which was sanctioned 42 years before, the " filing of the suit and based on which they had been enjoying the benefits of suit property
No occasion existed for decreeing the suit, in circumstances
Impugned decree being against law was set aside by High Court, in revision.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
The dispute in this case relates to inheritance in the estate of Imam Din who died in 1949. Inheritance Mutation No.155 was sanctioned on 28-5-1951 in favour of the 8 sons and 2 daughters of Imam Din. On I1-7-1993 i.e. more than 42 years after the aforesaid mutation two sons of Imam Din, namely, Fazal Ahmad (respondent No. 1) and Umar Hayat (respondent No.2) filed a declaratory suit out of which this petition has arisen. It was their case that Imam Din also had a daughter named Begum Bibi who was deprived of inheritance. Here it is to be noted that the two plaintiffs had received their share in the inheritance along with their six brothers and two sisters, namely, Rehmat Bibi and Fatima Bibi as per inheritance Mutation No.155 referred to above.
2. Begum Bibi or her legal heirs, who were arrayed as defendants Nos. 24 to 31, neither filed a suit nor have they expressed any grievance against inheritance Mutation No.155. Even more importantly, none of them has entered the witness box to assert that Begum Bibi was a daughter of Imam Din.
3. In the foregoing circumstances, there was no occasion for decreeing the suit. Apart from the plaintiffs only unconnected persons were produced as witnesses who did not possess the qualification required by .Article 64 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order to prove .that Begum. Bibi was a daughter of Imam Din. The plaintiffs themselves were also estopped by their conduct from calling in question Mutation No.155 which was sanctioned 42 years before the filing of the suit and based on which they had- been enjoying the benefits of the suit property. Additionally, even the death certificate produced on record originally did not prove that it related to a daughter of Imam Din. Exh.P-6, Exh.P-7 and Exh.P-8, which have been relied upon by the Courts below, also do not prove .that Begum Bibi was the daughter of Imam Din. This is particularly so in view of the failure of defendants Nos. 24-31 to appear in the witness box to assert their claim on oath and to submit to cross-examination.
4. In the foregoing circumstances, I find the impugned decrees to be against the law. The same are, therefore, set aside. As a consequence, the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs is dismissed. H.B.T./K-9/L Suit dismissed.