1989 PLP 1329(2) (SCMR)
MANZUR AHMAD and 7 others Petitioners Versus ABDUL KHALIQ and 7 others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1329(2) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MANZUR AHMAD and 7 others Petitioners Versus ABDUL KHALIQ and 7 others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1329(2) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1329(2) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah 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 1329(2) (SCMR) (MANZUR AHMAD and 7 others Petitioners Versus ABDUL KHALIQ and 7 others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Naazar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Amir Alam, Advocate Supreme Court and M. A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on- Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th September, 1988:
Headnotes / Summary
September, 1988. (On appeal from the order dated 18‑4‑1984 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in C.R. No.757/D of 1981). ‑‑‑S.4‑‑Rehabilitation Scheme, para. 46‑‑Children of predeceased son of propositus‑‑Entitlement to inherit on death of propositus viz. grandfather‑ Contention that predeceased son having died in 1950, Family Laws Ordinance promulgated in 1961, could not by virtue of S.4 thereof, be of assistance to his children‑‑Leave to appeal granted to examine the questions whether the property, being evacuee, petitioners would not be entitled to the relief claimed, by virtue of para.46 of Rehabilitation Scheme and whether Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 read with other connected laws would not be given such effect so as to entitle petitioners to inherit the estate left by their grandfather; question of retrospectivity of Ordinance, 1961 would also need re‑examination. Iqbal Mai v. Falak Sher P L D 1986 S C 228 and Muhammad Ali v. Abdul Aziz 1980 S C M R 267 ref.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sough; by the plaintiffs in a suit regarding inheritance in a case of Evacuee Land Settlement against dismissal of their civil revision by the High Court. The petitioners Nos.] to 7 claim to be the children of Din Muhammad a predeceased son of Sardar Muhammad a displaced person right‑holder. It appears that they were given the share, which as heirs they would have inherited in some land but were denied the same right in respect of other property. They were compelled to file the civil suit but without any success. It was held that Sardar Muhammad, having died on 27‑8‑1950, the Family Laws Ordinance promulgated on 15‑7‑1961 could not by virtue of section 4 thereof, be of any assistance to them. An appeal before the District Court was not entertained and its memorandum was returned on account of jurisdictional evaluation. The High Court, having entertained a revision petition dismissed the same affirming the trial Court's view namely that the 1961 Ordinance being not retrospective, the petitioners were not entitled to any relief as grand‑children of Sardar Muhammad. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners who has relied on lqbal Mai v. Falak Sher P L D 1986 S C 228 and other judgments of the superior Courts and the learned counsel for the respondents, who has cited Muhammad Ali v. Abdul Aziz 1980 S C M R 267 we consider it a fit and proper case to grant leave to appeal inter alia to examine the following questions:‑‑ (a) Whether the property, being Evacuee, the petitioners would not be entitled to the relief claimed, by virtue of para.46 of the Rehabilitation Scheme (b) Whether the Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 read with other connected laws would not be given such effect so as to entitle the petitioners in this case to inherit the estate left by Sardar Muhammad. In this context the question of retrospectively would also need re examination. Leave to appeal, is accordingly granted. Security Rupees 5,
000. The appeal shall be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties to file all necessary documents. Stay order dated 10‑10‑1984 to continue meanwhile. A.A./M‑891/S Leave granted.