1990 PLP R789 (SCMR)
Seith ABDUL SALAM‑‑Petitioner Versus Malik MAHMOOD HASAN and 12 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP R789 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zillah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | Seith ABDUL SALAM‑‑Petitioner Versus Malik MAHMOOD HASAN and 12 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (V of 1962)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP R789 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (V of 1962)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP R789 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zillah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP R789 (SCMR) (Seith ABDUL SALAM‑‑Petitioner Versus Malik MAHMOOD HASAN and 12 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mozamal Khan, Advocate Supreme Court, Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th August, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 19‑10‑1987 of the Lahore High Court in R.F.A. No. 162 of 1986). ‑‑‑S‑2‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑Art. 185 (3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑ Petitioner challenged right of his sister to inherit property left by their father, contending firstly, that he was co‑sharer with his father in suit property as it was jointly purchased by them in equal shares and secondly, that his sister had lost her right to inherit property as he had spent huge amount on treatment and funeral of his father‑‑‑Plea of petitioner that his sister had lost her right to inherit property due to his spending amount on treatment and funeral of his father was repelled by High Court holding that Muslim sister could not be deprived of her share in inheritance merely because of spending money by brother on treatment and funeral of their father‑‑‑Petitioner otherwise having failed to establish that he was co‑sharer with his father in suit property right of sister of petitioner to inherit property left by their father, held, was rightly recognised by High Court‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal against order of High Court refused. Ghulam Ali and two others v. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi C.P‑133‑R of 1989 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Ghulam Ali and two others v. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi C.P‑133‑R of 1989 ref. Mozamal Khan, Advocate Supreme Court, Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 30th August, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought; against the dismissal by the High Court, of petitioner/defendant's Regular First Appeal against a preliminary decree recognising the right of his sister (Mst. Noor Fatima) to inherit the property left by their father. Learned‑counsel has raised two alternative pleas: One, that the petitioner was co‑sharer with his father in the suit property as it was jointly purchased by them in equal shares. And, secondly, that he having spent Rs.1,80,000 on the treatment of his father and his burial the respondent had lost her right to inherit it. We asked the learned counsel to refer to any documentary evidence or other cogent material to give a finding of fact for the first time on the first plea; namely, that the petitioner himself was a co‑owner in the suit property which, as has been held by the learned Courts below, belonged to his father. He failed to satisfy us on this point. Regarding second plea this Court has recently held that a Muslim.sister cannot be deprived of her share in inheritance on the plea of money spent by the brothers on her behalf. See C.P: 133‑R of 1989 (Ghulam Ali and two others v. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi) decided on 15th May, 1989. And burial expense is un‑proved. After hearing the learned counsel we do not find any merit, leave to appeal accordingly, is refused. H.B.T./A‑645/S Leave to appeal refused.