2003 PLP 362 (MLD)
SIDDIQUL HASSAN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PUBLIC AT LARGE (AWAM‑UNNAS) and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 362 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Syed Jamshed Ali, J |
| Parties | SIDDIQUL HASSAN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PUBLIC AT LARGE (AWAM‑UNNAS) and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 362 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 362 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Syed Jamshed Ali, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 362 (MLD) (SIDDIQUL HASSAN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PUBLIC AT LARGE (AWAM‑UNNAS) and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sh. Irfan Akram for Petitioner.
- Mrs. Shaista Qaiser for Respondents Nos.2, 4 and 5.
- Date of hearing: 26th July, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.42‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115‑‑‑Islamic Law‑y ‑Suit for declaration ‑‑‑Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑‑Plaintiff had claimed that his cousin having died without leaving any heir in Pakistan, plaintiff was entitled to inherit movable and immovable properties of deceased‑‑‑Two Courts below on basis of evidence on record concurrently dismissed suit filed by plaintiff holding that plaintiff had failed to establish his relationship with deceased and that plaintiff had himself admitted that deceased had two brothers and one sister who were residing in India‑‑‑Question of relationship essentially was a question of fact which stood concluded by concurrent findings of two Courts below‑‑‑With admission of plaintiff that deceased had left behind two real brothers and a sister though residing in India, plaintiff was rightly held by Courts below not entitled to inherit properties left by deceased‑‑ Concurrent findings of Courts below could not be interfered with in revision by High Court.
Judgment & Decree
This revision petition is directed against concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned two Courts, whereby suit for declaration filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
2. The case of the petitioner in the plaint was that one Akbar Ali Khan was his cousin (Phupizad), who died on 4‑1-1981 without leaving any heirs in Pakistan leaving as his estate, a residential house, agricultural land and an amount of Rs.481.60 in the Muslim Commercial Bank. The plaintiff claimed declaration to be entitled to the said property.
3. The defendants contested the suit on the ground that Akbar Ali Khan, deceased had settled the said property in their favour on 20‑7‑1978 through the document Exh.D.l.
4. Necessary issues were framed and the suit was tried. The learned trial Court, on Issue No.3, found that the petitioner had failed to establish his relationship with Akbar Ali, deceased. Also that he had admitted that the deceased had two brothers namely Mussawar Ali and Akhtar Ali and a sister namely Mst. Zohra, who were residing in India. Therefore, it was held that the plaintiff was not entitled to inherit the property, of the deceased. On Issue No.4, it was found that Exh.D.l constituted a will in favour of the defendants. Accordingly, the suit of the petitioner was dismissed on 28‑1‑1989. The petitioner filed an appeal before the learned District Judge which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28‑2‑1993 by the learned District Judge, Bhakkar. He affirmed the findings of the learned trial Court on Issue No.3, while the findings of the learned trial Court on Issue No.4, were set aside. The respondents have not assailed the said judgment. However, the plaintiff/petitioner has challenged the said judgment and decree in this revision petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned two Courts misread the evidence of relationship of the petitioner with the deceased and did not take into consideration that since the heirs of Akbar Ali Khan had not come forward to claim the estate of the deceased, the petitioner was entitled to inherit it. ,
6. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner have been considered. The question of relationship is essentially a question of fact which stands concluded by concurrent findings of learned two Courts. In any case, with the admission of the petitioner that the deceased had left behind two real brothers and a sister, although residing in India, he was not entitled to inherit the estate of the deceased. There is not merit in this petition which is, accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./S‑545/L Revision dismissed.