1990 PLP 436 (SCMR)
MULAZIM HUSSAIN and 4 others‑‑Petitioners Versus NOOR MUHAMMAD‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 436 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | MULAZIM HUSSAIN and 4 others‑‑Petitioners Versus NOOR MUHAMMAD‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 436 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 436 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 436 (SCMR) (MULAZIM HUSSAIN and 4 others‑‑Petitioners Versus NOOR MUHAMMAD‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Munir Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Sultan Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 27th November, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the Order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan dated 5‑12‑1984 in R.SA.818 of 1976). ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Partition‑‑Petitioners' case that their father who was a brother of respondent, was entitled to more share in property in question due to certain expenditures incurred by him, had failed before all the Courts below‑‑Main controversy between the parties thus stood concluded by findings of fact, which also applied to the alleged family settlement/partition‑‑No such point was involved in petition as to justify interference by the Supreme Court‑‑Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Partition‑‑Petitioners' case that their father who was a brother of respondent, was entitled to more share in property in question due to certain expenditures incurred by him, had failed before all the Courts below‑‑Main controversy between the parties thus stood concluded by findings of fact, which also applied to the alleged family settlement/partition‑‑No such point was involved in petition as to justify interference by the Supreme Court‑‑Leave refused. Syed Munir Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Sultan Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 27th November, 1988. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Father of the petitioners and Noor Muhammad respondent, are brothers inter se. Petitioners' case, that their father was entitled to suit property (more share) in inheritance than Noor Muhammad respondent on account of certain expenditure incurred by the former, has failed before all the Courts below. The findings of fact are against them. They have now challenged the dismissal of their Regular Second Appeal by the High Court.
2. After hearing the learned counsel, we feel that the main controversy between the parties stands concluded by findings of fact; which also apply to the alleged family settlement/partition. No such point is involved as would justify interference by this Court Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. A.A./M‑959/S Leave refused.