2002 PLP 1106 (SCMR)
Mst. SHAMIM BEGUM‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MAQBOOL HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1106 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and Mian Muhammad Ajmal, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. SHAMIM BEGUM‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MAQBOOL HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1106 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1106 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and Mian Muhammad Ajmal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1106 (SCMR) (Mst. SHAMIM BEGUM‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MAQBOOL HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Kazim Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in C.P. No.682‑L of 2000).
- S. Abul Asim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No. 1039‑L of 2000).
- Date of hearing: 25th October, 2001
- Notice be also issued to Advocate‑General (Punjab), according to the provision of Order 27‑A, rule 1, C.P.C., to assist the Court relating to the interpretation of Article 172 of the Constitution.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 14‑12‑1999 passed by Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in C.R. No.322‑D of 1997). ‑‑‑‑Ss. 8 & 22‑‑‑Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.188‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973); Arts.l72 & 185(3)‑‑‑Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider, whether power of attorney executed by step‑mother of petitioner in favour of husband of petitioner had been validly executed in view of the fact that at the time, when power of attorney was executed, dispute relating to step‑mother's inheritance in the estate of her late husband was sub judice and petitioner was one of the contesting parties; whether in pursuance power of attorney petitioner's husband had legally entered into an agreement dated 11‑4‑1981 to sell the property of the step‑mother in favour of his wife (petitioner); whether on the basis of agreement dated 11‑4‑1981, any valid right had accrued . to petitioner for transfer of property in her name or otherwise; whether impugned judgment was based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record; whether High Court had rightly pressed into service the provision of S.22 of Specific Relief Act; whether the observation of High Court that dismissal of revision petition filed by petitioner would not confer any right on .respondents in property in dispute was correct; whether assertion of High Court that though there was strong possibility apparent from the record that step‑mother of petitioner had no legal heirs at the time of her death supported by any evidence, if so, to what effect; and whether High Court was right in holding that under the circumstances, case might be the one in which her estate would escheat to and vest in Provincial Government under Art. 172 of the Constitution.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑In above petitions filed by both the parties, respectively, judgment/decree, dated 14th December, 1999 passed by Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in Civil Revision No.322‑D of 1998 has been assailed.
2. After hearing leafed counsel for the parties, we are inclined to grant leave to appeal inter alia to examine the following questions:‑‑ (i)???????? Whether the power of attorney EXh.P.I executed by Mst. Chhawan (step‑mother of petitioner Mst. Shamim Begum) in favour of Amir Hussain Shah (husband of petitioner‑Shamim Begum) was validly executed in view of the fact that at the time when power of attorney was executed the dispute relating to Mst. Chhawan's inheritance in the estate of her late husband Mehboob Ali Shah was subjudice and petitioner Mst. Shamim Begum was one of the contesting party. ? (ii)??????? Whether in pursuance of EXh.P.I (power of attorney) Amir Hussain Shah legally entered into an agreement dated 11‑4‑1981 to sell the property of Mst. Chhawan in favour of his own wife? (iii)?????? Whether on the basis of agreement dated 11‑4‑1981 any valid right has accrued to petitioner Mst. Shamim Begum for the transfer of property on her name or otherwise? (iv)?????? Whether the impugned judgment is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record? (v)??????? Whether learned High Court has rightly pressed into service the provision of section 22 of the Specific Relief Act? (vi)?????? Whether the observation of the learned High Court that dismissal of revision petition filed by Mst. Shamim Begum would not confer any right to respondent on the property in dispute? (vii) ???? Whether the assertion of the learned High Court that there is though strong possibility apparent from the record that Mst. Chhawan had no legal heir at the time of her death supported by any evidence, if so, to what effect? (viii) ???? Whether the learned High Court was right in holding that under the circumstances, this might will be a case in which her estate will escheat to and vest in the Provincial Government under Article 172 of the Constitution? Notice be also issued to Advocate‑General (Punjab), according to the provision of Order 27‑A, rule 1, C.P.C., to assist the Court relating to the interpretation of Article 172 of the Constitution. S.A.K./S‑172/S?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly