1989 PLP 1680 (SCMR)
SHAHADAT and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD HAYAT and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1680 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Allah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | SHAHADAT and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD HAYAT and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1680 (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 1680 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Allah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1680 (SCMR) (SHAHADAT and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD HAYAT and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Ghias Muhammad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S, Abdul Asim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 17th July, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 10th May, 1981 in C.R. No. 533 of 1981). ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Findings of fact‑‑Unanimous findings of fact of three Courts below on the disputed point were against the petitioners‑‑Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IQBAL J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by the petitioners and is directed against order dated 10th May, 1981 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore. Briefly the facts arc that, the petitioners brought a suit for declaration of title against Muhammad Hayat and Sikandar respondents as well as Nura respondent claiming ownership of the disputed land. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and the appeal was also dismissed by the District Judge Faisalabad. Thereafter the petitioners filed civil revision in the Lahore High Court Lahore which was dismissed by learned Single Judge of that Court. The land in dispute originally belonged to Allah Dad who died in July, 1971. The petitioners are sons of Allah Dad by Mst. Koori and their case was that they were the only sons of Allah Dad and therefore entitled to succeed to his estate to the exclusion of the respondents. The main question which required determination in this case was as to whether or not Muhammad Hayat and Sikandar respondents were also sons of Allah Dad deceased. According to the petitioners they both were sons of Fattu and Mst. Bibi. Fattu had died 6/7 years before the institution of the suit in 1973. The petitioners' claim was that Fattu never divorced Mst. Bibi nor Mst. Bibi was ever married to Allah Dad deceased. Therefore even if Allah Dad had acknowledged Muhammad Hayat and Sikandar respondents as his sons it made no difference in the eyes of law. The findings of all the Courts below as well as the Lahore High Court, Lahore on this question of fact are against the petitioners. These are to the effect that only Nura respondent was son of Fattu and Mst. Bibi. Thereafter Mst. Bibi got divorce from Fattu and had married Allah Dad. Thus Muhammad Hayat and Sikandar respondents were the sons of Allah Dad by Mst. Bihi. Since there is unanimous finding of fact of the IA three Courts on this point as against the petitioners, in our view the impugned order calls for no interference. As a result this petition is dismissed. M.A.K./S‑309/S Petition dismissed.