1989 PLP 2004 (SCMR)
Mst. BHAGH BHARI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus ALLAH DITTA Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 2004 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. BHAGH BHARI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus ALLAH DITTA Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (V of 1962)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 2004 (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 1989 PLP 2004 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 2004 (SCMR) (Mst. BHAGH BHARI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus ALLAH DITTA Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Zainul Abidin, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing, 20th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 19‑1‑1985 of the Lahore High Court, in C.R No.70‑D/85) ‑‑‑S.5‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Muslim male owner having died issueless, and without having a wife, in 1924 his property was mutated in his mother's name under custom‑‑On promulgation of Act V of 1962, mother's life estate was terminated and two claimants claimed inheritance‑‑Material question for consideration before Courts was whether deceased Muslim had a s1ster and whether that s1ster had survived him‑‑Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court found that s1ster had died after her brother's death‑‑High Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by Courts below‑‑Concurrent findings of Courts below on question of fact did not justify interference by Supreme Court‑‑ Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order dated 19‑1‑85 of the Lahore High Court whereby the revision petition of the petitioners from the judgment of the Additional District Judy, Gujranwala, affirming the judgment of the trial Court, was dismissed.
2. The dispute between the parties relates to agricultural land, measuring upward of 300 kanals, situate in villages Thatha Qutha and Bairi Kalan of tehsil Gujranwala. It was owned by Khushi Muhammad. He died in 1924 before reaching the marriageable age. On his death, the land left by him was mutated in the name of this mother, Mst.Hussain Bibi, under the custom as a limited owner. On the enactment of the Shariat Application Act 1962, her limited interest came to an end. Consequently, on 23‑7‑64 a new mutation was attested. By this mutation Murad, predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners, was allowed 5/6 share as the first cousin on the paternal side of Khushi Muhammad and the remaining one share was given to Mst. Hussain Bibi. She died on 1‑11‑
64. There was prolonged litigation before the revenue authorities between Murad and Allah Ditta, respondent, who claimed to be the sole heir as well as donee of Mst.Hussain Bibi over share she was entitled to receive. Ultimately, Allah Ditta brought a suit in a Civil Court for possession of half share in the land in dispute. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and its judgment was maintained by the Additional District Judge and the High Court.
3. The material questions for consideration before the Courts were whether Khushi Muhammad had a s1ster by the name of Mst. Rani and whether she had survived him. So far as the first question is concerned, it is no longer disputed that Mst.Rani was his s1ster. As regards the second question, it may be mentioned that both the brother and s1ster had died during a plague epidemic within an interval of a few days. The case of Murad was that Mst. Rani had predeceased Khushi Muhammad. On the other hand, Allah Ditta alleged that her death occurred subsequently. Both parties led oral as well as documentary evidence at the trial. The trial Court as well as the learned Additional District Judge held that Mst.Rani died after her brother. The High Court declined to interfere with this concurrent finding.
4. In support of this petition, it is contended that the subordinate Courts misread the documentary evidence in arriving at a conclusion with regard to the death of Mst.Rani. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the record we are not persuaded that the findings of the subordinate Courts suffer from any infirmity. Leave is refused. A.A./B‑120/S Leave refused.