2008 PLP 299 (SCMR)
RIASAT ALI and others — Petitioners Versus GHULAM RASOOL and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 299 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Actg. C.J. Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, JJ |
| Parties | RIASAT ALI and others — Petitioners Versus GHULAM RASOOL and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Islamic Law |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 299 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Islamic Law as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 299 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Actg. C.J. Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 299 (SCMR) (RIASAT ALI and others — Petitioners Versus GHULAM RASOOL and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. M. Hussain Naqshbandi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th January, 2005.
- Ch. Muhammad Rafique Warriach, Advocate Supreme Court and Mian Atta-ur-Rehman, Advocate-on-Record for Applicants.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 13-1-2004 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in Review Petition No.30/C of 2004 and R.S.A. No.298 of 1984).
High Court in its judgment had held that a female descendant of a common ancestor was not a residuary and did not find any mention in table of residuaries
Findings of High Court were according to Islamic Law and petitioner could not say anything against said findings
Petition for leave to appeal was declined
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3). Muhammadan Law by Mulla ref. Ch. Muhammad Rafique Warriach, Advocate Supreme Court and Mian Atta-ur-Rehman, Advocate-on-Record for Applicants.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, ACTG. C.J.
This petition calls in question judgment, dated 13-1-2004 passed by Lahore High Court. Concluding para. therefrom is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "The submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants has been considered. It has no merit. As a result of examination of the evidence produced in this case this Court found that one Shamir had four sons namely Eida, Shams Din, Karam Dad and Imam Bakhsh. The vendors were the sons of Manda son of Eida while Ghulam Haider, rival pre-emptor, was son of Murad son of Shams Din. Mst. Ayesha Bibi was a daughter of Fateh Din son of Imam Din. Thus, while the vendors were the grandsons of the brother of Shams-ud-Din, the grandfather of Ghulam Haider. Mst. Ayesha Bibi was a granddaughter of Imam Bakhsh, real brother of Eida, the grandfather of the vendors. A female descendant of a common ancestor is not a residuary and does not find any mention in the table of residuaries given in the Muhammadan Law by MuIla. The illustration being relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants is not applicable. It provides that son's daughter inherits as residuary with daughters son's son."
2. When the learned counsel was called upon to satisfy as to whether a female descendant of a common ancestor is not a residuary and does not find any mention in the table of residuaries given in the Muhammadan Law of Mulla, he could not answer satisfactorily despite the fact that he read certain provisions from the Muhammadan Law. In such view of the matter we are of the opinion that female is not a descendant of a common ancestor. Thus, for the foregoing reasons the petition is dismissed and leave declined. H.B.T./R-35/SC Petition dismissed.