1991 PLP 1210 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1210 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, CJ., Shafiur Rahman, |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1210 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1210 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, CJ., Shafiur Rahman,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1210 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 29th October, 1989.
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 1-7-1989 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Civil Revision No.1194-D of 1989).
O.XXIII, R.3
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Deceased's share of inheritance was mutated in equal shares between his real brothers and consanguine brother
Real brother having filed appeal against mutation, he later withdrew it on basis of compromise effected between the parties
Consanguine brother also withdrew his suit against the real brother of deceased
Real brother, subsequently filed suit against mutation which was dismissed on grounds of estoppel and limitation, but his appeal succeeded
Consanguine brother unsuccessfully challenged the decree in revision
Consanguine brother's contention was that real brother having withdrawn the appeal on account of compromise same had attained finality which could not be disturbed on the principle of spes successionis
Leave to appeal was granted to consider the contention raised on behalf of petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 29th October, 1989. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.‑‑One Sohna possessed agricultural land measuring 167 Kanals 11 marlas in the revenue estate of Mahaal Kotli, Tebsil Pasroor, District Sialkot. He expired and left him surviving Nawaz, a son from his wife Resham Bibi and three. other sons namely, Nasrullah, Jamadar and Sardar Khan from his second wife Nawab Bibi. Nasrullah died issueless in 1959, and in the mutation of inheritance No.1050 sanctioned on 12th of September, 1961, Nawaz was given a share in the inheritance of Nasrullah alongwith Jamadar and Sardar Khan. Jamadar also died issueless, and in the mutation of inheritance No.36 sanctioned on 27‑10‑1979, Nawaz and Sardar Khan the real surviving brothers of Jamadar were given equal shares. Sardar Khan appealed against the share of inheritance sanctioned in favour of Nawaz which appeal was compromised by the parties and withdrawn by Sardar Khan on 20th of January, 1980. Nawaz who had earlier filed the suit also withdrew it. Subsequently on 12th of June, 1980, Sardar filed a suit challenging both the mutations, but the suit was dismissed on the grounds of limitation and estoppel on 27th of June, 1987 against which the appeal succeeded and the decree was reversed in regard to both the mutations. Revision against this decision was dismissed by the High Court on 25th of June, 1989. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he would not question the decree qua Mutation No.1050, dated 12‑9‑1961 as, according to him, Nawaz had no share in the property of Nasrullah. But so far as the other Mutation No.36 is concerned, the decree was erroneous as Sardar Khan himself had withdrawn the appeal on account of a compromise between himself and Nawaz which had assumed finality and could not be disturbed on the principle of spes successionis. Accordingly, we would grant leave to appeal to the petitioner qua his share in Jamadar's inheritance recorded in Mutation No.36. The learned counsel further concedes that he would not press the question of limitation. Security for costs Rs.2,
500. Status quo as to possession qua his share in Jamadar's inheritance, till the decision of the appeal. AA./M‑1172/S Leave granted.