1989 PLP 2038 (SCMR)
Agha ABDUL HAMEED and 7 others Petitioners Versus Mst. NASEEM BEGUM Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 2038 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Usman Ali Shah, JJ, |
| Parties | Agha ABDUL HAMEED and 7 others Petitioners Versus Mst. NASEEM BEGUM Respondent |
| Primary Law | Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 2038 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 2038 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, 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 2038 (SCMR) (Agha ABDUL HAMEED and 7 others Petitioners Versus Mst. NASEEM BEGUM Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Saeed‑ur‑Rehman Farrukh Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 11th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court dated 27‑11‑1985 in Civil Revision No. 1583 of 1985). ‑‑S.375‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 185 (3)‑‑Succession certificate granted to widow of deceased who had been held to be entitled to appropriate the amount stated therein, exclusively as her own property, without sharing it with other heirs, in accordance with Muhammadan Law‑‑Legality‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine, whether, there was absolutely no material available to help discover the conditions relating to the payment in question; if not whether additional evidence should not have been called for; and whether, it should not be called for now‑‑If ultimately the position remained as assumed by the High Court, whether the respondent/widow was not a trustee when receiving the amount on behalf of all heirs including herself; and lastly; whether in the circumstances of the case, the amount in question was not liable to be d1stributed amongst all the heirs of deceased in accordance with the Muhammadan Law of inheritance.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought; against the dismissal by the High Court, of a Civil Revision. It had arisen out of a succession certificate regarding one Abdul Ghafoor deceased who met with an accident in S. Arabia and expired there.
2. The amount in question was paid to the respondent, a widow of Abdul Ghafoor, who has been held to be entitled to appropriate it exclusively as her own property, without sharing it with other heirs, in accordance with the Islamic law. The petitioners side represents them. No doubt it is correct that as observed by the High Court nothing was before the learned Courts below to give final verdict on the terms and conditions of the contract under which the amount was paid as compensation (or otherwise) regarding the death of Abdul Ghafoor.
3. The High Court, however, relied on an entry showing Mst. Naseem Begum as an heir/beneficiary, therefore, in absence of any other material it was thought that she was entitled exclusively to appropriate the entire amount. After hearing the learned counsel we consider this case fit for grant of leave to examine; whether, there was absolutely no material available to help discover the conditions relating to the payment in question; 1f not whether, additional evidence should not have been called for; and, whether it should not be called for now.
4. If ultimately the position remains as assumed by the High Court, whether the respondent was not a trustee when receiving the amount, on behalf' of all heirs including herself. And lastly; whether, in the circumstances of this case the amount in question was not liable to be distributed amongst all the heirs of Abdul Ghafoor in accordance with the Muslim Law of inheritance. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is granted. Security Rs.5,000.
5. Oral request of the learned counsel for the petitioners for filing of additional fresh material, if available, (which was not before the Courts) is allowed. The material shall be placed on the file after due notice to the other side. A.A./A‑616/S Leave granted.