1989 PLP 1211 (SCMR)
GHULAM QADIR‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL MAJID and 11 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1211 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM QADIR‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL MAJID and 11 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1211 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1211 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1211 (SCMR) (GHULAM QADIR‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL MAJID and 11 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Roshan Ali Sindhu, Advocate instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 25th March, 1985 of the Lahore High Court, in Civil Revision No.420‑D of 1984). ‑‑‑S.42‑‑Suit for declaration‑‑Inheritance‑‑Last owner died issueless‑ Respondents' predecessor‑in‑interest claimed himself as an heir, on the other hand widow of deceased claimed that after the death of her husband predecessor -in‑interest had surrendered his rights in his favour and thereafter she gifted the property which was in her possession as a limited owner in favour of her (Pichlag), her son from her previous husband‑‑Predecessor‑in‑interest did not accept the genuineness/validity of the surrender and filed suit against the son of widow seeking declaration regarding 3/4th of the estate of the deceased‑‑Held, widow was a limited owner and she was never accepted by predecessor‑in‑interest as absolute or sole owner nor the predecessor‑in‑interest ever surrendered his reversionary rights in her favour‑‑Concurrent findings of Courts below in this respect were not interfered with by the Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the defendant in a suit for declaration arising out of an inheritance dispute, against the dismissal of his Civil Revision by the High Court. Fazal Hussain (Din) the last owner died issueless. Charagh Din respondents' predecessor‑in‑interest claimed himself as an heir. On the other hand Hussain Bibi, the widow, claimed that after the death of her husband, said Charagh Din had surrendered his rights in her favour. Thereafter she gifted the property which was in her possession as a limited owner in favour of Ghulam Qadir petitioner who is her son from her previous husband (Pichhlag). As Charagh Din, did not accept the genuineness/validity of the aforementioned surrender accordingly suit was filed from the respondents' side against the petitioner seeking declaration regarding 3/4th of the estate of the deceased. The suit was decreed. The petitioner's appeal and revision having been dismissed he has now sought leave to appeal. After hearing the learned counsel we are satisfied that Mst. Hussain Bibi was a limited owner. It has also been correctly held against the petitioner that she was never accepted by Charagh Din as absolute or sole owner nor he ever surrendered his reversionary rights in her favour. Arguments on both these questions not having found favour with the learned Courts below the concurrent findings rendered against the petitioner have been found to be unexceptionable. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused. M.BA./G‑177/S Leave refused.