1990 PLP 631, (SCMR)
HABIBULLAH and 4 others‑‑Petitioners Versus SAKHI MU14AMMAD and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 631, (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | HABIBULLAH and 4 others‑‑Petitioners Versus SAKHI MU14AMMAD and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 631, (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 631, (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 631, (SCMR) (HABIBULLAH and 4 others‑‑Petitioners Versus SAKHI MU14AMMAD and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Agha Taj Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court and Abul Aasim Jafari, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 14th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 2‑12‑1QR5 of the Lahore High Court, in Civil Revision No.2306-D of 1095) ‑‑‑S.4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Plaintiffs suit claiming to be the sole heir of deceased was decreed by the First Appellate Court and confirmed by the High Court in revision‑‑Defendant's contention; that findings of fact rendered by First Appellate Court and confirmed by High Court were the result of misreading and non‑reading of evidence; was not supported by record‑‑‑No error of law or principle in so far as findings of fact were concerned having been pointed out, leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
Agha Taj Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court and Abul Aasim Jafari, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 14th June, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑‑The defendant side has sought leave to appeal; against the dismissal of their Civil Revision by the High Court. It had arisen out of respondents' suit for cancellation of mutation proceedings and also for possession of the suit land. One Muhammad Ali having died petitioners claimed inheritance as sole heirs to the exclusion of Sakhi Muhammad respondent No.1 who claimed to be the pre‑deceased son of Muhammad Ali. Although Muhammad Ali, as stated by the learned counsel, had died after coming into force of the Family Laws Ordinance: and by virtue of section 4 thereof, Sakhi Muhammad would have inherited the share which would have gone to his pre‑deceased father if he would have been alive on the death of Muhammad Ali; yet the plea pressed from petitioners' side is that Sakhi Muhammad's mother was not married to Qudratullah who was the son of Muhammad Ali. The learned trial Court dismissed respondents/plaintiffs' suit on the finding that he was not grand‑son of Muhammad Ali. His appeal was allowed and the findings of fact adverse to his claim were set aside. His suit was decreed. A learned Judge in the High Court dismissed the petitioners' civil revision on the finding that the dispute raised was one of pure fact, which stood concluded by proper findings rendered by the appellate Court. There being no misreading or non‑reading of evidence the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court was not attracted. Learned counsel for the petitioners has in support of this petition tried to show that the findings of fact impugned in this petition rendered by the appellate Court and affirmed by the High Court were the result of misreading and non -reading of evidence. After hearing him in this behalf we have not been able to discover any error of law or principle in so far as the findings of fact are concerned. The reliance was placed by the learned counsel on Mst.Farishta v. The Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Law, Islamabad P L D 1980 Pesh. 47 which is of no , help to the petitioners. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused. A.A./H‑77/S Leave refused.