P L D 1966 W (PLP)
MUHAMMAD WARIS AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus SHERA‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD WARIS AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus SHERA‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1966 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1966 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1966 W (PLP) (MUHAMMAD WARIS AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus SHERA‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Shaikh Nazir Ahmad Shami and Malik Muhammad Aslam for Petitioners.
- Khizar Tamimi for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (V of 1962), S. 5‑Succession ‑Heirs of last male owner entitled to inherit on termination of limited owner's interest. P L D 1965 W. P. (Rev.) 12 rel.
Judgment & Decree
Shaikh Nazir Ahmad Shami and Malik Muhammad Aslam for Petitioners. Khizar Tamimi for Respondent. This is a revision filed against an order, dated the 2nd of June 1964, passed by Commissioner, Sargodha, whereby the revision preferred by the respondent was accepted and the case was remanded. The facts of the case are that the Assistant Collector, II Grade, sanctioned a mutation in a manner in which Shera deceased was given two shares out of three eight shares from the property in dispute after the death of Mst. Zaidan, widow of Bahadur. Shera deceased went in appeal to the Collector but the appeal was dismissed. He then went in revision to the Commissioner who accepted the revision and remanded the case. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned Commissioner relied on P L D 1962 W. P. (Rev.)
96. This ruling has been superseded by the Full Board decision reported in P L D 1965 W. P. (Rev.)
12. The decision given by the Assistant Collector was in accordance with the principles laid down in the Full Board ruling and was, therefore, correct. No interference with it was justified. The learned counsel for the respondent has stated that Shera died after the Commissioner had passed his orders, but before the revision was filed in this Court. No evidence has been produced to this effect. The learned counsel for the respondent did not raise such an objection when the heirs of Shera deceased were served and he filed his power of attorney on 10‑11‑1965. Nor was any objection raised on the last hearing. In the first instance, this assertion is not substantiated and, in the second, even if it was taken into consideration, it will not change the course of things. The case is remanded and, after remand, a decision has to be given keeping in view the Full Board decision. In these circumstances, I accept the revision, set aside the orders passed by the learned Commissioner and direct that all proceedings taken after the remand order shall stand cancelled and the original order passed by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, on the 31st of December 1962, shall stand and shall be implemented. K. M. A. Revision accepted.