1989 PLP 1775(2) (SCMR)
Mst. AZEEM BIBI Petitioner Versus Mst. KAMMON MAI alias KARAM ELAHI‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1775(2) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. AZEEM BIBI Petitioner Versus Mst. KAMMON MAI alias KARAM ELAHI‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1775(2) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1775(2) (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 1775(2) (SCMR) (Mst. AZEEM BIBI Petitioner Versus Mst. KAMMON MAI alias KARAM ELAHI‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Talib Hussain Awan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Sala‑ud‑Din, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Taj Muhammad Langah, Advocate instructed by Raja Maqbool Ahmed Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 27th November, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dated 2‑10‑1984 in Civil Revision No.544‑D of 1981). ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Dispute as to will‑‑Questions: whether disputed will was made in respondent's favour and whether the petitioner had consented to it at the relevant time stood concluded by findings of fact‑‑Such findings getting support from the fact that the petitioner had kept silent for about a quarter of a century‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL AULLAH, J.‑‑Both the parties are sisters inter se. Their father made the disputed will in favour of the respondent. The petitioner succeeded before the lower two Courts in avoiding the effect of the will but failed before the High Court in a Civil Revision, filed by the respondent.
2. The questions; whether the disputed will was made in respondent's favour and whether the petitioner had consented to it at the reverent time now stand concluded by findings of fact. The findings in this behalf get support from the fact that the petitioner kept silent about it for nearby about a quarter of century. To us also, it appears that she had consented to it. No justification has been made out for interference. Leave to appeal is refused. M.A.K./A‑528/S Leave refused.