1989 PLP 1778 (SCMR)
Mst. RASULAN and 7 others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. MUMTAZ BEGUM and 2 others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1778 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. RASULAN and 7 others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. MUMTAZ BEGUM and 2 others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1778 (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 1778 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1778 (SCMR) (Mst. RASULAN and 7 others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. MUMTAZ BEGUM and 2 others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Ncmo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th February, 1989.
- Ch. Muhammad Hasan, Advocate instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order, dated 10th of January, 1984 of Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No.39‑D of 1984). ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Succession‑‑Petitioners filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction against respondents basing their claim on the assertion that the last male‑holder left behind only a son to inherit his property exclusively‑ Respondents claiming themselves as widow and daughters of deceased last owner established their claim by producing Nikhanama and birth entries‑‑Suit was dismissed and petitioners also failed in appeal and revision‑‑Paternity of respondents besides being established by other evidence, stood also corroborated by the position taken by the mother with regard to the fact as to who their father was‑‑Record not showing that respondent was not married to the deceased‑ Concurrent findings of fact were not suffering from any error of appreciation of evidence, legal or otherwise‑‑Leave to appeal refused. Ch. Muhammad Hasan, Advocate instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought against the dismissal by the High Court of petitioners' Civil Revision‑ The petitioners' side had instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents basing their claim on the inheritance of one Noora deceased, the last male‑holder. According to petitioners he left only Mamoora, a son as an heir and, therefore, he was to inherit the property exclusively. The respondents, however, claimed as widow and daughters respectively of Noora therefore, the suit was filed to get the dispute regarding inheritance adjudicated upon. At the trial oral as well as documentary evidence was produced. The Nikahnama of respondent No.l with Noora and the birth entries of respondents Nos. 2 and 3, showing them as daughters of Noora, were also produced in evidence. The suit was dismissed. The petitioners also failed in appeal and revision. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the concurrent findings of fact reached by the learned Courts below. He has pointed out some discrepancies in the documentary evidence vis‑a‑vis the date of the death of Noora. Same discrepancies relate to the birth entries of the respondents Nos.2 and 3 which have been placed on record. After perusal thereof the so‑called discrepancies get explained. Photostat copy of the Nikahnama has not been placed on record. We, therefore, would not make any comment with regard to the authenticity of the disputed entries made therein nor would say that some changes might have been made therein subsequent to the relevant stages of dispute. Be that as it may oral evidence was also led from both sides. Paternity of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 besides being established by other evidence, stood also corroborated by the position taken by the mother with regard to the fact as to who their father was. On legitimacy also there is nothing on the record to show that respondent No.l was not married to Noora deceased. On the contrary the concurrent findings of fact by the learned Courts below do not suffer from any error of appreciation of evidence, legal or otherwise. There is no merit in this petition. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. M.A.K./R‑91/S Leave refused.