1989 PLP 1756 (SCMR)
Mst. BASSO‑‑Petitioner Versus ANWAR ALI‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1756 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. BASSO‑‑Petitioner Versus ANWAR ALI‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1756 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1756 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1756 (SCMR) (Mst. BASSO‑‑Petitioner Versus ANWAR ALI‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 20th July, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 26‑10‑1980 in L.P.A. No. 225 of 1967). ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Transfer of property‑‑High Court after thoroughly examining the question of entitlement, legal rights of the parties and the factual position restored the transfer of property in favour of the respondent‑‑Judgment of High Court, held, called for no interference‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑Mst. Basso widow of Farid, resident of House No.11/302, Mohalla Janjua Street, Lalamusa, District Gujrat seeks leave to appeal against the jugment of Lahore High Court dated 26‑10‑1980 in L.P.A No. 225 of 1967 and Civil Reference 2/C‑
77. The Letters Patent Bench of the High Court after taking into consideration the legal and factual position upset the decision of learned Single Judge and allowed the appe4l upholding the transfer made in favour of Anwar respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to establish that the petitioner had a preferential right over the respondent but he was unable to do so in view of the reasons given in the impugned judgment of the High Court. We find the High Court thoroughly examined the question of entitlement, legal rights of the parties, the factual position and then restored the transfer in favour of the, respondent. The judgment of the High Court calls for no interference. Leave is refused and the petition dismissed. M.A.K./B‑115/S Leave refused.