1991 PLP 1498 (SCMR)
Mst. AZIZ BEBUM and 4 others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUI — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1498 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry; JJ |
| Parties | Mst. AZIZ BEBUM and 4 others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUI — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1498 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1498 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry; JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1498 (SCMR) (Mst. AZIZ BEBUM and 4 others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Bashir Ahmed Ansari. Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Kh. M. Habibullah. Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. M. Aslam, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 15th April, 1990.
- Bashir Ahmed Ansari. Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Kh. M. Habibullah. Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. M. Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 20-2-1989 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in R.S.A. No. 43 of 1985).
S. 51--I~Iesne Profits and Improvements Act (XI of 1855), S. 2
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Respondent having filed a direct appeal against the same judgment which was impugned in present petition and was pending; leave to appeal was granted, inter alia, to examine conflict of legal provisions of two statutes involved in the case viz. S.51, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and S. 2, Mesne Profits and Improvements Act, 1855
Objection having been raised from respondent's side on the competency of present petition it would also require examination whether petitioners should not have filed direct appeal; if so further objection of respondent was that said appeal would have to be treated as time barred
Above controversy and its effect would also have to be examined-- Leave to appeal was granted. ORDER MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.
Leave to appeal has been sought, against the acceptance by the High Court, of respondents' Regular Second Appeal. It had arisen out of acceptance of the petitioner's appeal by the District Court as a result of which their suit against the respondent was decreed. The opposite party; namely, respondent having filed a direct appeal (CA. 132 of 1989) against the same judgment which is impugned in this petition and is pending, we after hearing the learned counsel, consider this also a fit case for grant of leave to appeal, inter alia, to examine the conflict of legal provisions of two Statutes involved in this case. One: Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the other section 2 of the Mesne Profits and Improvements Act, 1855. An objection having been raised from the respondent's side on the competency of the present petition it would also require examination: whether the petitioners should not have filed a direct appeal. If so, the further objection of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the said appeal would have to be treated as time-barred. Accordingly, this controversy and its effect will also have to be examined. Leave to appeal is granted. Security Rs. 5,
000. The appeal shall be prepared on present record with direction to the parties to file all those documents which shall be necessary for disposal thereof. No alienation by either side nor the change of character of the property. A.A; A-778/S Leave granted.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ. ‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought, against the acceptance by the High Court, of respondents' Regular Second Appeal. It had arisen out of acceptance of the petitioner's appeal by the District Court as a result of which their suit against the respondent was decreed. The opposite party; namely, respondent having filed a direct appeal (CA. 132 of 1989) against the same judgment which is impugned in this petition and is pending, we after hearing the learned counsel, consider this also a fit case for grant of leave to appeal, inter alia, to examine the conflict of legal provisions of two Statutes involved in this case. One: Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the other section 2 of the Mesne Profits and Improvements Act, 1855. An objection having been raised from the respondent's side on the competency of the present petition it would also require examination: whether the petitioners should not have filed a direct appeal. If so, the further objection of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the said appeal would have to be treated as time‑barred. Accordingly, this controversy and its effect will also have to be examined. Leave to appeal is granted. Security Rs. 5,
000. The appeal shall be prepared on present record with direction to the parties to file all those documents which shall be necessary for disposal thereof. No alienation by either side nor the change of character of the property. A.A; A‑778/S Leave granted.