1991 PLP 1883 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SAKHI — Petitioner Versus ABDUL RAHIM and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1883 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SAKHI — Petitioner Versus ABDUL RAHIM and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1883 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1883 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1883 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SAKHI — Petitioner Versus ABDUL RAHIM and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Majeed Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- S. Abdul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 5th March, 1989.
- Abdul Majeed Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- S. Abdul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 3-12-1984, passed in Civil Revision No.30 of 1982).
Art. 185(3)
High Court proceeded with alleged gift deed in favour of petitioner correctly on principle of interpretation of document- --Question whether High Court misread contents of alleged gift deed, was a question of fact not raising any question of law or of public importance
Case thus was not fit for interference by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑‑On 15‑3‑1981, the Civil Judge, Lahore passed a decree in favour of Abdul Rahim and Bashir Ahmad respondents herein in a suit for possession through partition against Muhammad Sakhi petitioner herein and his brother Muhammad Rafi, giving the respondents 7/18th share. the same share to the petitioner and 4/18th share to one Mst. Sardaran Begum daughter of Muhammad Din. The learned trial Court also held that there was no proof of adoption of Muhammad Shafi, father of the petitioner, by Hayat Muhammad and even otherwise adoption is not recognized in the Muslim Law. The petitioner herein filed appeal against the order of Civil Judge, Lahore, Before the District Judge, Lahore, who vide his judgment dated 5‑11‑1981 accepted the contention of Muhammad Shafi that he was the adopted son of Hayat Muhammad and as such had become the sole owner of the property after the death of Hayat Muhammad and reversed the decree and order passed by the civil judge. Against this order the respondent's civil revision before the Lahore High Court was accepted, set aside the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court and preliminary decree for possession by partition of one‑third share of the property in dispute is passed in favour of the respondents against the petitioner We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgment of the courts below. We have observed that Muhammao Shafi, father of the petitioner had failed to convince the Court that Hayat Muhammad was governed by the custom which could validate his adoption, otherwise the validity of the act of adoption of the petitioner's father is to be judged according to the Muslim Law and not from the custom prevailing. Now the question whether the High Court misread the contents of the alleged gift deed dated 22‑12‑1980 is a question of fact and does not raise any question of law or of a public importance. Thus, the High Court proceeded the same correctly on the principle of interpretation of the document. In the circumstances, we do not consider this case to be fit for interference by this Court. The petition, is therefore, dismissed and leave refused. H.B.T./M‑1008/S Petition dismissed.