1989 PLP 1478 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SALEHOON‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. BILQUIS BEGUM and others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1478 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhmmad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SALEHOON‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. BILQUIS BEGUM and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII 1967) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1478 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII 1967) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1478 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhmmad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1478 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SALEHOON‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. BILQUIS BEGUM and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- MAftab Iqbal Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Adam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th August, 1988
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 2‑4‑1983 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in R.SA. No.382 of 1980). ‑‑‑S. 45‑‑Alienation‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Regardless of technical objections by petitioner, alienation in respondents' favour together with the relevant conditions was fully proved and petitioners' claim on merits was not. at all well‑founded‑‑Petition for leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑A defendant has sought leave to appeal against the dismissal by the High Court of his Regular Second Appeal which had arisen out of a dispute about alienation by one Ghulam Muhammad, of suit property to the respondent No.l in lieu of her dower. The history of litigation is fairly long which need not be narrated here. The impugned judgment has dealt with all the details adequately. The dispute between the contesting parties raised before us is simple. Firstly whether the alienation was validly made in respondents favour and if so whether any subsequent alienation through gift in petitioner's favour during the pendency of the litigation was valid and effective gainst the rights of the said respondent. Secondly, questions have also been raised of petitioner's right to challenge the alienation to the said respondent and in that context asserted all his rights notwithstanding the bar of transfer during pendency of litigation. Jurisdictional questions have also been raised. We have heard the learned counsel at some length. Regardless of the technical objections, the alienation in respondents favour together with the relevant conditions is fully proved. That being so, petitioner's claim on merits is not at all well‑founded. Thus notwithstanding any technical objections, we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. It is, accordingly, refused. M.B.A./M‑855/S Petition dismissed.