P L D 1962 W (PLP)
SAIF ALI‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM NABI AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1962 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | A. M. Khan Leghari Member Board of Revenue West Pakistan |
| Parties | SAIF ALI‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM NABI AND OTHERS‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1962 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1962 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: A. M. Khan Leghari Member Board of Revenue West Pakistan.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1962 W (PLP) (SAIF ALI‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM NABI AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Zia Mahmood for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Mutation‑Summary inquiry to be held on spot, and in open assembly, to avoid expense and inconvenience to parties, and to enable Revenue Officer to arrive at truth‑Whether a sister died after death of her brother (last male‑holder) to enable her issue to inherit her share in her brother's estate ‑Inquiry directed by Collector to be held on spot confirmed by Commissioner‑Approved by Board.
Judgment & Decree
The facts are that Mst. Khan Bibi, widow of Qaim Din died in August 1960. The Revenue Officer in his order dated 2‑10‑1960, attested inheritance mutation No. 452 of village Pind Jata, as follows: ‑ (i) Saif Ali petitioner, sister's son of Qaim Din, the last male‑holder: 3/8th share. (ii) Ghulam Nabi alias Mohabat Ali respondent, son of real cousin of Qaim Din: 3/8th share. (iii) Najabat and Yousuf, real nephews of Khan Bibi deceased 1/8th share each out of the issueless deceased widow's th share under section 3 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Applica tion Act, 1948. In the first appeal Raja Ghulam Mehdi who has signed as Assistant Collector 1st Grade, but presumably had the appellate powers of a Collector, which designation he should have ensured was inscribed under his signature, found that in so far as the petitioner's share and that of Ghulam Nabi respondent were con cerned, much depended on the issue whether Imam Bibi sister of Qaim Din last male‑holder had pre‑deceased him or had died after him. He felt that the Revenue Officer was in the best position to arrive at the facts in this behalf in open assembly and therefore, recommended the case back to him for adjudication after allowing the parties to adduce evidence in support of their claims. This order is very proper one. The whole object of insisting that muta tion proceedings are held on the spot and in open assembly is to enable the Revenue Officer to arrive at the truth at a saving of inconvenience and expense to the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that it is not for the Revenue Officer to decide this question, but for the respon dent to file a civil suit and prove that his mother pre‑deceases Qaim Din. I have no hesitation in holding that this contention leas no force. During the period of my judicial training while I was a Civil Judge, in a case before me, the mother and one sister claimed that a girl was Malti married to `X' and another sister claimed that that very girl was Band and that Malti was another girl. It took a good deal of time and expense to get at the truth at the district headquarters, while every child in the village would know which of the girls was Malti and which Band, who was married to `X'. It is for this very reason that provision has been made through the simple mutation proceedings for rural folks to obtain adjudication and ready justice after a proper summary inquiry in open assembly at the spot. The order of the Appellate Courts below is, therefore, entirely in accordance with the law. The Revenue Officer cannot dispose of this mutation without deciding the fact whether Mst. Imam Bibi died before or after Qaim Din, the last male‑holder. As he has omitted to decide this question of fact, the case had rightly been remanded back to him. The appeal (sic) is, therefore, dismissed in limine. A. H. Petition dismissed.