1989 PLP 1160 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD HASSAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. FATIMA (Widow) and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1160 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HASSAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. FATIMA (Widow) and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1160 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1160 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1160 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD HASSAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. FATIMA (Widow) and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Riazul Hassan Gilani, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th September, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order, dated 7th April, 1984 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Regular Second Appeal No.77 of 1984). (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Petitioner's claim had been rejected throughout on the basis of findings against him regarding disputed questions of fact‑‑Refusal of High Court to interfere with the findings of fact did not suffer from any infirmity‑‑Leave to appeal refused. (b) Gift‑‑ ‑‑‑Power of Attorney‑‑Contention that on the day the gift was made by the attorney, person who executed the power of attorney in his favour was not alive, therefore, power of attorney was no more operative; hence gift made on the basis of said power of attorney was ineffective‑‑Assertion regarding the death of said person was based on an assumption made and a presumption claimed, on the further assertion, that he was not heard of for last seven years‑‑No concrete material for holding that death took place on a certain date was available‑‑Held, if the said person had died before the gift was made in favour of his son's wife, then he (son) being the sole successor of his father, to inherit his property could in any way give away the same to his wife‑‑Claim of petitioner having been rejected throughout on the basis of findings against him, Supreme Court declined interference.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration, relating to questions of inheritance and validity of a gift regarding suit land, against the dismissal by the High Court of their regular second appeal. The suit and 1st appeal were earlier dismissed. The petitioners claim to be collaterals of Suleman, husband of respondent No.1. The father of Suleman, as stated by the learned counsel, had executed a power of attorney in his favour and he on the strength thereof made gift of the suit property to Mst. Fatima, his wife, the said respondent. It is however, asserted by the learned counsel that on the day the disputed gift was made, Suleman's father was not alive, therefore, the Power of Attorney was no more operative, hence the gift made on the basis of said power of Attorney was ineffective. The assertion from the petitioners' side regarding the death of Suleman's father is based on an assumption made and a presumption claimed, on the further assertion that he was not heard of for the last seven years. There was no concrete material for holding that the death took place on a certain date. The petitioners' claim has been rejected throughout on the basis of findings against them regarding disputed questions of fact. The refusal of the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact does not suffer from any infirmity. On merits otherwise also; if Suleman's father had died before the gift made in his wife's favour, then he being the sole successor of his father, to inherit his property could in any way give away the same to his wife. For this reason also, it would not be appropriate and fit case for interference with the impugned judgment. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. M.BA./M‑851/S Leave refused.