1989 PLP 450 (SCMR)
NAZIR AHMAD represented by Legal Heir and others‑‑Petitioners Versus BOOTA and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 450 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | NAZIR AHMAD represented by Legal Heir and others‑‑Petitioners Versus BOOTA and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 450 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 450 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 450 (SCMR) (NAZIR AHMAD represented by Legal Heir and others‑‑Petitioners Versus BOOTA and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M‑Anwar Sipra, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners ,
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th July, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 28‑2‑1988 in Civil Revision No.15/D/1986). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 115‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Concurrent findings of fact‑‑Interference with‑‑Question of paternity and inheritance‑‑Dismissal of civil revision, challenged‑‑Concurrent findings of fact regarding paternity not suffering from any infirmity.‑No justification for interference having been made out, leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the plaintiffs' side in a land inheritance case, against the dismissal of their Civil Revision by the High Court. The petitioners' plea that Mst.lrshad Begum respondent No.3 was not the daughter of Fatoo, the last male‑holder, has not been accepted by the appeal Court nor by the High Court. ‑‑Accordingly, she was allowed her share of inheritance from her father (Fatoo) in accordance with Muslim Law. Learned counsel has contended that the findings of fact regarding paternity of Mst. Irshad Begum are not correct. The points raised by him relate to appreciation of evidence. The concurrent findings of fact reached by the two higher Courts do not suffer from any infirmity, on the question of fact raised by the learned counsel. Thus, no justification has been made out for interference. Leave to appeal is refused. M.I./N‑100/S Petition dismissed.