1975 PLP 429 (SCMR)
Shirimati MOTAL BAI-Petitioner Versus AHMAD AND ANOTHER-Respondents
| Citation | 1975 PLP 429 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Shirimati MOTAL BAI-Petitioner Versus AHMAD AND ANOTHER-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Hindu Law |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1975 PLP 429 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Hindu Law as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1975 PLP 429 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1975 PLP 429 (SCMR) (Shirimati MOTAL BAI-Petitioner Versus AHMAD AND ANOTHER-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Akhtar Mahmud, Advocate instructed by V. A. Kidwai, Advocate-on- Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 10th March 1975.
- Akhtar Mahmud, Advocate instructed by V. A. Kidwai, Advocate‑on- Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan dated 4-6-1974, in Constitution Petition No. 447 of 1972).
Life interest of widow-Petitioner having life interest in house -dying-Interest of petitioner, held, extinguished and her cause of action did not survive in favour of her successors-in-interest, if any.
Judgment & Decree
Akhtar Mahmud, Advocate instructed by V. A. Kidwai, Advocate‑on- Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 10th March 1975. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑The property in dispute originally belonged to Hondumal who died leaving behind his widow, Shirimati Motal Bai and two sons Premchand and Parsram. In 1933, Shirimati Motal Bai filed a Civil Suit in Hyderabad for a declaration that she had got a life interest in the house in addition to her 1/4th share. The remaining 3/4th share devolved upon the sons. This decree was granted in her favour on the 30th July 1935. Subsequently, on the Partition of the country, both her sons migrated to India and, therefore, their 3/4th share in the house was treated as evacuee property and transferred to the respondent, Abmad son of Nabi Bakgh on the 22nd December 1970, subject to the condition that he would continue to allow Shirimati Motal Bai to occupy the house as a tenant to the extent of 3/4th portion during her lifetime in addition to her 1/4th share. Against this order, both sides went up in appeal to the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The latter rejected the claim of the said respondent on the ground that he was a tenant of the house from before the Partition. He then went up in revision which succeeded. The order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner was set aside and that of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner restored. Against this order, Shirimati Motal Bai went to the High Court in the writ jurisdiction but her petition was dismissed. She then came up to this Court for special leave to appeal. This petition was filed on the 4th September, 1974, but, thereafter, it h said, she expired on the 9th October 1974. By reason of her death, this petition is said to have become infructuous as her heirs are evacuees and A her own life estate has become extinguished after her death. She herself has, therefore, no further interest left in this property nor can her cause of action be said to have survived in favour of her successors‑in‑interest, if any. This position appears to be correct. The petition has, accordingly, become in fructuous and is dismissed as such. Petition dismissed.