2004 PLP 1036 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ and others — Petitioners Versus SARDAR and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1036 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh and Mian Muhammad Ajmal, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAFIQ and others — Petitioners Versus SARDAR and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (V of 1962), (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1036 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (V of 1962), (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 1036 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh and Mian Muhammad Ajmal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1036 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD RAFIQ and others — Petitioners Versus SARDAR and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mehmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 4th July, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 13-10-1999 passed in C.R. No. 1084 of 1999).
Ss. 3 & 5
Devolution of property-- Deceased left behind one widow and two daughters, but had no male heir
Widow inherited suit-land as limited owner
On termination of her limited interest and in absence of any male heir of deceased (last male owner), daughters would get by way of inheritance the shares allocated to them under Islamic law, whereas remaining property would be inherited by collaterals of deceased (last male owners).
S.42
Joint property
Suit for mere declaration without seeking possession or partition of property as consequential relief-- Maintainability
Such suit by one of the joint owners would be maintainable on the allegation that he was also owner in property, which right was being denied to him
Not necessary for any such joint owner to claim partition of joint property also
Partition could be claimed by any of the joint owners during currency of joint ownership without limitation of any period in that behalf, so long as his right was not denied.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.
This petition is directed against the judgment, dated 13-10-1999 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore through which .revision petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.
2. The dispute relates to inheritance of one Nawab. The respondents were admittedly his daughters whereas the present petitioners are his collaterals being heirs of his brother. It was held that after the death of Nawab, the land was inherited by his widow Mst. Hakam Bibi/mother of the respondents as limited owner and on the termination of her limited interest, the property devolved on the heirs of last male owner i.e. Nawab, under the Muslim Law. Since Nawab had not left any male heir therefore, his two daughters were declared to be the owners of the property by way of inheritance according to the shares allocated to them as daughters under the Mohammedan Law and the remaining property was inherited by the A respondents as collaterals. These findings have been recorded by all the Courts below and we do not find any reason as to why the present petitioners have filed this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the only objection which the petitioners wanted to agitate was that since the respondents were not in possession of the property, therefore, the suit for mere declaration without prayer for consequential relief of possession was not maintainable.
4. We are afraid, the argument is plainly unsound. The heirs of Nawab had become joint owners of the property after the termination of limited interest of Hakam Bibi therefore, it was a case of joint ownership and suit for declaration by one of the joint owners that they were also owners in the property which right was being denied to them, was maintainable.
5. It was not necessary for any of the joint owners, to have claimed partition of the joint property at, present as it could be claimed by any of the joint owners during the currency of joint ownership without limitation of any period in that behalf so long as the right of any of the joint owners was not denied which was not in dispute in this case.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality, therefore, this petition has no merits which is accordingly, dismissed and leave refused. S.A.K./M-600/S Leave refused.