1994 PLP 686 (SCMR)
Mst. FAQRAZ BIBI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ELAHI BAKHSH and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 686 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. FAQRAZ BIBI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ELAHI BAKHSH and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961))‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 686 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961))‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 686 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 686 (SCMR) (Mst. FAQRAZ BIBI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ELAHI BAKHSH and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Munir Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 27th November, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 24‑7‑1993, passed in Cr. 301/93). ‑‑‑‑S. 5 (5)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Petitioner's claim of ownership to house in question was based on entry in "Nikahnama" on strength of which she claimed that the house was given to her in lieu of dower at the time of marriage‑‑‑Petitioner claimed that she had been exercising proprietary rights over the house in question, without let or hindrance by respondents and that both respondents (her husband and his father) had signed "Nikahnama" of petitioner in token of confirmation of stipulation contained in "Nikahnama"‑‑ Contention raised by petitioner required examination‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑‑The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 24‑7‑1993, dismissing in limine the Civil Revision Application No.301 of 1993 filed by the petitioner. The petitioner, who is wife of Muhammad Sididque (respondent No.3) instituted suit for permanent injunction against the respondents alleging that she was in possession of House No.Y‑753 situated in Dhok Ratta, Rawalpindi, which was given to her in lieu of dower of Rs.1,00,000 at the time of her marriage by respondent No.l, the father of respondent No.3. The suit was resisted by respondents 1 and 2 and the learned trial Court after hearing the parties decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner and respondent No.3, who were plaintiffs in the above suit. On appeal the learned first appellate Court reversed the findings on issue No.4 and consequently decree and judgment passed in favour of the petitioner was set aside. The learned Judge in chambers upheld the findings of the first appellate Court and dismissed Civil Revision present petition. In seeking leave to appeal the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the `Nikah Nama' of the petitioner contained a clear entry with regard to the fact that the house in dispute was given to the petitioner by the father of bridegroom at the time of marriage of the petitioner and evidence on record clearly established that eversince the marriage of the petitioner she exercised full proprietary right over the house without any interference by respondents 1 and
2. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the respondent No.l, who was the previous owner of the house, had also signed `Nikah Nama' of the petitioner in token of the confirmation of stipulation contained in the `Nikah Nama'. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner requires examination and we, accordingly, grant leave to appeal to consider the same. A.A./F‑283/S Leave granted.