2002 PLP 1364 (SCMR)
ALAF DIN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1364 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ALAF DIN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1364 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1364 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1364 (SCMR) (ALAF DIN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Farooq Hassan Naqvi, Advocate Supreme. Court and M.A Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. .
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 9th March, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 6‑11‑2001 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No. 621 of 1991). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑‑New plea, raising of‑‑‑Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below‑‑‑Temporary allotment for maintenance‑‑‑Disputed property was mutated in the name of his brother after the death of the original allottee‑‑‑Petitioner being nephew of the original allottee claimed allotment of the property in his name‑‑‑All the Courts below had decided the matter against the petitioner and did not find him entitled to allotment of the disputed property‑‑‑Plea raised by the petitioner was that after the death of the allottee, his, inheritance would open to his heirs, under Islamic law and petitioner being nephew of the allottees would also get the share as both the allottees did not have male issue‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Findings of fact did not suffer from any illegality on account of misreading or non‑reading of any material piece of evidence‑‑‑Plea raised by the petitioner was a question not before Supreme Court for decision in the proceedings‑‑‑Supreme Court observed that whenever a mutation of inheritance of the allottees would be sanctioned, the petitioner might raise the question which would be decided to accordance with law and if the petitioner would feel aggrieved, he might seek remedy in accordance with law‑‑‑Supreme Court declined to interfere with the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.‑‑‑The land in dispute measuring 26 Kanals and 14 Marlas was allotted temporarily for maintenance to Saif Ali deceased. In the allotment order made in his favour he was shown to have three members of his family without giving their names. Feroz Din brother of Saif Ali was also allotted another piece of land for the same purpose and number of members of his family shown in his allotment were
7. The present petitioner is admittedly the son of Feroz Din. Feroz Din had two sons inclusive of the present petitioner and four daughters and a wife. On the death of Saif Ali, Habib Ali his brother was substituted as head of the family qua his allotment. The present petitioner who is admittedly son of Feroz Din made an application that on the death of Habib Ali he should be allotted this land and conferred proprietary rights in respect thereof. He was ordered to deposit an amount of Rs.1,340 in the Government Treasury as the Government dues at the rate of 10 P.I. Units as the said land corresponded to 134 P.I. Units which he deposited.
3. On the application of the petitioner, however, mutation was sanctioned in favour of Habib Ali i.e., the brother of Saif Ali who was the head of the family which was challenged by the petitioner firstly before the Revenue Authorities and thereafter by filing a suit from which this petition has arisen. In the suit another question arose whether Begum Bibi was the daughter of Saif Ali. The case of the petitioner was that Saif Ali contracted second marriage with Shah Bano mother of Begum Bibi and Begum Bibi was his daughter from her previous husband who migrated Pakistan with Asif Ali at the time of partition of the Sub‑continent whereas Shah Bano was murdered in India in 1942.
4. The Courts below have held that the three members of the family shown in the allotment of Saif Ali did not include the present petitioner Alaf Din who was member of family of Feroz Din being his son. The other members of family of Saif Ali were Habib Ali his brother and Begum Bibi his daughter. The petitioner challenged that Begum Bibi was daughter of Saif Ali but it has been held that Begum Bibi was the daughter of Saif Ali.
5. The findings of facts recorded by the Courts below have not been shown to have suffered from any illegality on account of misreading or ‑reading of any material piece of evidence.
5. Learned counsel for the petition r submitted that after the death of Habib Ali his inheritance would open to his heirs, under Muhammdan Law and Alaf Din present petitioner would also get the share as his nephew, being son of Feroz Din as Saif Ali did not have male issue. This question is not before this Court for decision in these proceedings. In the view of this whenever a mutation of inheritance of Habib Ali or Saif Ali is sanctioned, the petitioner may raise this question which shall be decided in accordance with law and if the petitioner would feel aggrieved, he may seek remedy in accordance with law.
7. For the foregoing reasons, this petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused. Q.M.H./M.A.K./A‑214/S??????? Petition dismissed.