P L D (Rev (PLP)
Mst. HAJRAN‑Petitioner Versus SUBA KHAN and another‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D (Rev (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. HAJRAN‑Petitioner Versus SUBA KHAN and another‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Mutation‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D (Rev (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Mutation‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D (Rev (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D (Rev (PLP) (Mst. HAJRAN‑Petitioner Versus SUBA KHAN and another‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nawab Ahmad, for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Will‑Registered‑Upheld by Civil Court only in respect of house property not in respect of land‑Will rightly ignored by Revenue Officer.
Judgment & Decree
NASIR AHMAD, F. C.‑The petitioner is the daughter of Jahan Khan who was the last male holder of the property in dispute. After Jahan Khan's death the property went to his widow who died in 1954 leaving behind her an only daughter, Mst. Hajran, the present petitioner. The land was mutated on the strength of an old will of 1937 in favour of Mst. Hajran, the petitioner 5/6th as follows 1/3rd under the will and 1/2 as a sharer, the remaining 1/6th was mutated in favour of Jahan Khan's two surviving brothers. Both the latter went up in appeal on the ground that the will should not be relied upon as it was an old document of 1937 which had not been acted upon: in any case not completely because even as a result of civil litigation the will was made applicable only to some house property by the Civil Court. The learned Com missioner for these reasons interfered in the order passed and directed that the will should be ignored and succession decided in accordance with Shariat. The daughter Mst. Hajran has now come up in revision. The main contention that has been urged before me is that as the will was a registered document the Revenue Officer should decide the mutation in accordance therewith particularly when it is proved that at least a part of this document was acted upon. As already mentioned the will was executed in 1937 and even as a result of civil action by, the petitioner she succeeded only partly and not in respect; of the landed property. I consider that this was sufficient justification for the Revenue Officer to ignore the will without going into the question of its validity for which the petitioner should go to the Civil Court. In my opinion the appeal has been correctly decided and the revision petition stands rejected. A. H. Petition rejected.