1989 PLP 1213 (SCMR)
Mst. INAYAT BIBI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus ISSAC NAZIR ULLAH and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1213 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. INAYAT BIBI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus ISSAC NAZIR ULLAH and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1213 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1213 (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: 1989 PLP 1213 (SCMR) (Mst. INAYAT BIBI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus ISSAC NAZIR ULLAH and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rashid Murtaza Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 12th July, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 25‑11‑1980 in W.P. No.235/1979). ‑‑‑S.32‑‑Punjab Laws Act (IV of 1872), S.5‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Inheritance‑‑Widow and two daughters of deceased Christian‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine questions of general public importance that (i) whether Succession Act, 1925 would not govern the case of inheritance of Christian deceased; (ii) whether Punjab Laws Act, 1872 could not be applied to the case; (iii) whether the rule of Customary law applied against the widow and daughters of deceased Christian depriving them of inheritance was not contrary to justice, equity and good conscience as understood in the Pakistan Jurisprudential context; (iv) whether rule of Custom was also opposed to justice, equity and good conscience as understood in Pakistani Jurisprudential context; and (v) whether the former or the latter consideration would prevail in interpreting S.5 of the Punjab Laws Act, 1872‑‑Supreme Court ordered that property in dispute should not be alienated in any manner whatsoever, by any party and status quo should be maintained by all concerned during the pendency of the matter in the Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑A widow and two daughters of a Christian male owner have sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their writ petition in an inheritance case, by a Full Bench of the Lahore High Court. Besides, some questions of general public importance, we consider it a fit case, inter alia, to examine:‑‑ (a) Whether, as pleaded from the petitioners' side in the High Court, the Succession Act, 1925 would not govern this case; (b) Whether Punjab Laws Act, 1872 could not be applied to the present case; (c) Whether the rule of customary law applied against the petitioners depriving these females of inheritance is not contrary to justice, equity and good conscience as understood in the Pakistani Jurisprudential context; (d) Whether the said rule of custom is also opposed to justice, equity and good conscience as understood in the Christian community; and (e) If the said rule is not opposed to justice, equity and good conscience as understood in Christian community; but is opposed to justice, equity and good conscience as understood in Pakistani Jurisprudential context; whether the former or the latter consideration would prevail in interpreting section 5 of the Punjab Laws Act, 1872 (in case it is applicable); which reads as follows:‑‑ "S.5.‑‑In questions regarding succession, special property of females, betrothal, marriage, divorce, dower, adoption, guardianship, minority, bastardy, family relations, wills, legacies, gifts, partitions, or any religious usage or institution, the rule of decision shall be‑‑ (a) any custom applicable to the parties concerned, which is not contrary to justice, equity or good conscience, and has not been by this or any other enactment altered or abolished and has not been declared to be void by any competent authority; (b) ... ... ... ...' Leave to appeal accordingly is granted. Security Rs.5,
000. The appeal shall be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties to file all necessary additional documents. The property in dispute shall not be alienated in any manner whatsoever by any party and status quo shall be maintained by all concerned during the pendency of the matter in this Court. M.B.A./1‑73/S???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????? Leave granted.