1986 PLP 798(1) (CLC)
Mst. SALEEMA BIBI‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM RASOOL and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 798(1) (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan. J |
| Parties | Mst. SALEEMA BIBI‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM RASOOL and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 798(1) (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 798(1) (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan. J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 798(1) (CLC) (Mst. SALEEMA BIBI‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM RASOOL and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Sattar Zahid for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Nazir Ahmad for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th October, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Findings of fact‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Property given for maintenance‑‑Not inheritable‑‑Findings of fact, held, could not be interfered with in Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Property given for purpose of maintenance only could not be inherited. Allah Rakhi v. Sughran Bibi N L R 1980 U C 126 ref.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Findings of fact‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Property given for maintenance‑‑Not inheritable‑‑Findings of fact, held, could not be interfered with in Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Property given for purpose of maintenance only could not be inherited. Allah Rakhi v. Sughran Bibi N L R 1980 U C 126 ref. Abdul Sattar Zahid for Petitioner. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad for Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th October, 1985. There is a finding by the Additional Settlement (7ommissioner that in the Fard‑Taqseem the petitioner was not shown as a member of the family of Shamas Din and that her name was later on interpolated by someone. This is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed before me a judgment of this Court reported as Allah Rakhi v. Sughran Bibi N L R 1980 U C 126 in which a view has been taken that the property given for purpose of maintenance only was not inheritable. This being so, the very basis upon which this writ petition was based disappears It is accordingly dismissed with costs. H . B . T . Petition dismissed.