1989 PLP 1939 (SCMR)
SHAMSUD DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. JIWAN and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1939 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ |
| Parties | SHAMSUD DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. JIWAN and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1939 (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 1939 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1939 (SCMR) (SHAMSUD DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. JIWAN and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Q.M.Salim, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 22nd November, 1.988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, dated 16‑6‑1984, in C.R. No.302/D/84). Art.185(3)‑‑Muhammadan Law‑‑Concurrent findings of fact by the two appeal Courts on question of applicability of customary law were against the petitioner‑ Findings of fact on the question of possession which helped the respondent's side in overcoming the objection relating to the limitation were also against the petitioner‑‑Neither any law nor principle had been violated‑‑Case was not considered fit for re‑appraisal of evidence, particularly when the respondent had been allowed the share in the inheritance on the principles of Shariah‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a defendant in a suit for inheritance, against ‑the dismissal of his Regular Second Appeal by the High Court. The dispute is between petitioner and his sisters (The respondents side). The respondents were kept out of inheritance of Noor Muhammad, the deceased owner, through a mutation; which was decided on the basis of customary law. Their suit was dismissed, however they succeeded in appeal and petitioner's second appeal having been dismissed by the High Court, he has now sought leave to appeal. No doubt the inheritance opened in 1933 but the concurrent findings of fact by the two appeal Courts on the question of applicability of customary law to the parties concerned are against the petitioner. Similarly, the findings of fact on the question of possession which helped the respondent's side, in overcoming the objection relating to the limitation, are also against the petitioner. Learned counsel has tried to show that re‑appraisal of the evidence on both the aforenoted questions, is necessary. We do not agree with him. Neither any law nor principle, having been violated, we do not consider it fit case for reappraisal of evidence particularly when the respondent side has been allowed the share in the inheritance on the principles of Shariah. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. MA.K/S‑400/S Leave refused