1987 PLP 75 (SCMR)
RAJWALI (deceased) through his Legal heirs and 4 others‑‑Petitioners Versus ALLAH DAD (deceased) through his Legal heirs Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 75 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | RAJWALI (deceased) through his Legal heirs and 4 others‑‑Petitioners Versus ALLAH DAD (deceased) through his Legal heirs Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 75 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 75 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 75 (SCMR) (RAJWALI (deceased) through his Legal heirs and 4 others‑‑Petitioners Versus ALLAH DAD (deceased) through his Legal heirs Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Fazal Ellahi Siddiqi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Sh. Zamir Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 3 and 4.
- Date of hearing: 10th November, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment and decree of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 2‑2‑1985 in Regular Second Appeal No. 294 of 1965) ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. I, R. 9‑ Inheritance‑‑Non‑joinder of necessary parties‑‑ Effect‑‑Declaratory suit by respondent relating to inheritance decreed by Trial Court and decision upheld in second appeal‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider petitioners' contention that out of four collaterals two having pre‑deceased, on death of third one his share should have gone to surviving collateral; and what was effect of petitioner's failure to implead some necessary parties in first appeal filed against decree of trial Court.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 10th November, 1986. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑ Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 2‑2‑1985 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a Regular Second Appeal arising out of a declaratory decree in a suit relating to inheritance, was dismissed and first appellate judgment of affirmation of the decree, was upheld. The respondent‑side had filed a declaratory suit seeking their share in the estate left by one Shahwali who died in 1921. The property in question went to Gulab Khatoon Shahwali's widow as limited estate because Shahwali was issueless. Gulab Khatoon died in 1962. The question of inheritance then arose as explained by both the learned counsel. The learned trial Judge decided the question of inheritance on the basis that one‑fourth would go to the heirs of Gulab Khatoon. Out of the remaining three‑fourth, one‑third each to Mst. Amiran and Mst.Himtan sisters of Shahwali. There would still be left 1/12th share which was allowed to four collaterals of Shahwali (deceased); namely, Rajwali, Sanghar, Ghazan and Ghulam Muhammad with share of 1/48th each. Ghulam Muhammad having in the meanwhile died (but after Shahwali), his 1/48th share received from the estate of Shahwali was distributed as follows: One‑third to Ashraf Khatoon, the mother of Ghulam Muhammad and through her to her heirs; The remaining two‑third was given to the collaterals of Ghulam Muhammad, namely, Rajwali (petitioners' predecessor‑in‑interest) Ghazan and Sanghar in equal shares. Learned counsel for the petitioners had contended that at the time of death of Ghulam Muhammad in 1939 only Rajwali was alive. Sanghar and Ghazan had already died in 1924 and 1939 respectively. Therefore, the two‑third share out of 1/48th from Shahwali's estate which was deemed to have gone to Ghulam Muhammad should have been given to Rajwali the surviving collateral of Ghulam Muhammad at the time of his death. This question needs consideration. It would also need examination as to what is the effect of the petitioners' failure to implead some necessary parties in the First Appeal filed against the decree passed by the learned trial Court. Leave to appeal accordingly, is granted. Security Rs.2,
500. M.I. Leave granted.