1989 PLP 1673 (SCMR)
GHULAM RASUL‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD BIBI Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1673 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM RASUL‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD BIBI Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1673 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1673 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1673 (SCMR) (GHULAM RASUL‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD BIBI Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qaii M. Salim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Adam Choudhry. Advocate‑on Record for Petitioner.
- Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent)
- Date of hearing: 21st November, 1988
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan dated 25th March, 1981 in Civil Revision No. 97/D of 1981). ‑‑‑Art.185(31__Finding of fact‑‑Applicant Court on the basis of oral evidence supported by documentary evidence found that respondent was wife. of deceased and therefore entitled to her share in his estate‑‑Such finding was upheld by High Court‑‑Question of fact having been decided against the petitioner no case for interference was made out‑‑Petition ,vas dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IUBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave is directed against order of the Lahore High Court Multan Bench Multan whereby civil revision of the petitioner was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that there were three brothers namely Ghulam Rasul petitioner, Ghufam Qadir and Ghulam Haidcr. Ghulam Qadir died in 1977 and his inheritance was sanctioned in the names of Ghulam Haider and Ghulam Rasul petitioner in equal shares. Sometime later also in 1977 died Ghulam Haider leaving behind Mst. Muhammad Bibi respondent his widow. Thus two mutations were entered, one pertaining to inheritance of Ghulam Qadir i.e. Mutation No. 209 and other pertaining to the inheritance of Ghulam Haider i. e. Mutation No.
210. Both were sanctioned on 28 January, 1978. Mutation No. 210 pertaining to the estate of Ghulam Haider, out of which 3/4th share was given to the petitioner and 1 /4th share was given to Mst. Muhammad Bibi respondent, his widow, as he had died issueless. This mutation i.e. No.210 was challenged by the present petitioner before the Civil .fudge on the ground that Mst. Muhammad Bibi respondent was not the wife of Ghulam Haider deceased as he had never married. The suit was decreed but on appeal of Mst. Muhammad Bibi respondent the judgment of the trial Court was reversed. Thereafter the revision petition filed by the present petitioner against the appellate Court's judgment was dismissed by the I‑ligh Court. Hcncc the present petition. It is contended by learned counsel that according to the evidence on record Ghulam Haider deceased was a Sainlog and had never married. But this argument is not supported by the evidence on record. The Lambardar and the other owners of the estate had deposed that the respondent had lived with the deceased Ghulam Haider as his wife for more than 25 years. It was on such evidence supported by documentary evidence on the basis of which the appellate Curt had arrived at the conclusion that the respondent was the wife of Ghulam Haider deceased and therefore entitled to 1/4th share in his estate. This fording A of fact has been upheld by the High Court. Since the question of fact has been decided against the petitioner no case is made out for interference. The petition is accordingly dismissed. M.A.K./G‑199/S Petition Dismissed