2004 PLP 1104 (SCMR)
Mst. SAKEENA and others — Petitioners Versus Mst. AMEERAN MAI and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1104 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Tanvir Ahmed Khan, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. SAKEENA and others — Petitioners Versus Mst. AMEERAN MAI and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1104 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 1104 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Tanvir Ahmed Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1104 (SCMR) (Mst. SAKEENA and others — Petitioners Versus Mst. AMEERAN MAI and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Inayat Ullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th June, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 17-8-1999 passed by Lahore High Court, Multan Bench in Civil Revision No. 451-D of 1999).
S. 45
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Ousting co-owners from the mutation
Concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below
Dispute was with regard to mutation attested in favour of defendant whereby the plaintiffs, who were real sisters of the defendant, were excluded from them mutation
Defendant failed to bring on record any document on the basis of which the mutation was entered
Parties were co-sharers and the defendant was paying share of crops to the plaintiffs
Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of plaintiffs and judgment and-decree was maintained by Appellate Court as well as by High Court
Validity-- Defendant in an illegal manner secured the disputed mutation simply to oust his own sisters from inheritance which they were entitled under the law
Two Courts below after scanning the entire evidence brought on record decreed the suit and High Court had rightly maintained the determination by dismissing the revision of the defendant in limine-- Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.
Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 17-8-1999, whereby Civil Revision No.451-D of 1999 filed by the petitioner was dismissed in limine by the learned Single Judge, Lahore High Court, Multan Bench.
2. The facts briefly are that Imam Bakhsh predecessor-in-interest of the parties was an allottee of State land under a permanent scheme. The respondents/plaintiffs filed a declaratory suit being daughters of the predecessor-in-interest taking exception to the Mutation No.20 sanctioned on 3rd of September, 1970 showing the transfer of the disputed land by the predecessor in favour of his son Allah Bakhsh. This suit was instituted on 11-6-1988.
3. The petitioner/defendant contested the suit and out of the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. The learned Civil Judge, Lodhran after scanning the entire evidence brought on record held the disputed mutation of Tamleek and order of the District Collector as illegal, void and decreed the suit of the respondents vide judgment, dated 19-10-1996.
4. The petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed by the District Judge, Lodhran through his judgment, dated 19th July, 1999. Civil Revision filed by the petitioner also met the same fate and was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench through the impugned judgment, dated 17-8-1999. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
5. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. We have noticed that the petitioner fatted to bring any order on record on the basis of which the mutation was entered. It is also reflected from the documents appended with this petition that the parties are co-sharer and the petitioner was paying share of crops to the ladies. He in an illegal manner secured the disputed mutation simply to oust his own sisters from the inheritance which they are entitled under the law The two Courts below after scanning the entire evidence brought on record decreed the suit of the respondents. The learned Single Judge maintained the determination by dismissing the Civil Revision of the petitioner in limine.
6. Resultantly, for what has been stated, the present petition being; without any merit is hereby dismissed and leave refused. M.H./S-233/S Petition dismissed.