1981 PLP 229 (CLC)
Mst. INAYAT BIBI AND 2 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus ISSAC NAZIRULLAH AND 2 OTHERS‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1981 PLP 229 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Zakiuddin Pal, M. S. H. Qureshi and Muhammad Afzal Lone, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. INAYAT BIBI AND 2 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus ISSAC NAZIRULLAH AND 2 OTHERS‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 229 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP 229 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Zakiuddin Pal, M. S. H. Qureshi and Muhammad Afzal Lone, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 229 (CLC) (Mst. INAYAT BIBI AND 2 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus ISSAC NAZIRULLAH AND 2 OTHERS‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Rashid Murtaza Qureshi for Petitioner.
- S. M. Mohsln for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- Dates of hearing : 18tb, 22nd October and 5th November 1980.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Punjab Laws Act (IV of 1872)‑ S. 5 read with Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)‑Succession‑ Custom (Punjab)‑Held, to be rule of decision, where established, to exclusion of personal law‑Notwithstanding Succession Act, S. 5 of Punjab Laws Act gives effect to a rule of decision in matter of succession upon proof that custom governed matter even in respect of Muslims and Hindus‑Situation in respect of Muslims continued to be so until promulgation of Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Acts. Sohan Lal v. A. Z. Makuin A 1 R 1929 Lah. 230 and Valshno Dilla v. Rome.%hri (1928) 10 Lah. 89 ( P. C) ref. Kamawati v. Digbijai Singh A I R 1922 P C 14 distinguished. (b) Punjab Laws Act (IV of 1872)‑ ‑‑ S. 5‑Succession‑Custom (Punjab)‑Inheritance by male heirs to exclusion of female‑Held, rule of custom widely practised in Punjab by communities and religious groups irrespective of existence of their personal laws‑‑Reasonableness of a custom‑Held, primarily a question of fact to be decided after proper inquiry which cannot be done by High Court in writ jurisdiction under Art. 199, Constitution of Pakistan (1973).‑[Question of fact]. Sita Ram v. Raja \Ram 12 P R 1892; Roe's Tribal Law in the Punjab, p. 62 and Abdul Karim y. Sahib Jan (1908) 5 P R 40 ref. (c) Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)‑ Ss. 3 & 29(2) read with Punjab Laws Act (IV of 1872)‑‑Notifica tion for exemption from operation of provisions of Succession Act Not necessary when a law already in existence creating an exemption Punjab Laws Act, held, such a law which obviates necessity of issuing a Notification under S. 3 in Punjab Province.
Judgment & Decree
Sohan Lal v. A. Z. Makuin A 1 R 1929 Lah. 230 and Valshno Dilla v. Rome.%hri (1928) 10 Lah. 89 ( P. C) ref. Kamawati v. Digbijai Singh A I R 1922 P C 14 distinguished. (b) Punjab Laws Act (IV of 1872)‑ ‑‑ S. 5‑Succession‑Custom (Punjab)‑Inheritance by male heirs to exclusion of female‑Held, rule of custom widely practised in Punjab by communities and religious groups irrespective of existence of their personal laws‑‑Reasonableness of a custom‑Held, primarily a question of fact to be decided after proper inquiry which cannot be done by High Court in writ jurisdiction under Art. 199, Constitution of Pakistan (1973).‑[Question of fact]. Sita Ram v. Raja \Ram 12 P R 1892; Roe's Tribal Law in the Punjab, p. 62 and Abdul Karim y. Sahib Jan (1908) 5 P R 40 ref. (c) Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)‑ Ss. 3 & 29(2) read with Punjab Laws Act (IV of 1872)‑‑Notifica tion for exemption from operation of provisions of Succession Act Not necessary when a law already in existence creating an exemption Punjab Laws Act, held, such a law which obviates necessity of issuing a Notification under S. 3 in Punjab Province. Rashid Murtaza Qureshi for Petitioner. S. M. Mohsln for Respondents Nos. 1 and
2. Dates of hearing : 18tb, 22nd October and 5th November 1980.