1991 PLP 2049 (SCMR)
Mst. RUKHSANA BIBI and others — Petitioners Versus LAL HUSSAIN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 2049 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Rustam S. Sidhwa, J |
| Parties | Mst. RUKHSANA BIBI and others — Petitioners Versus LAL HUSSAIN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Muhammadan Law |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 2049 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Muhammadan Law as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 2049 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Rustam S. Sidhwa, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 2049 (SCMR) (Mst. RUKHSANA BIBI and others — Petitioners Versus LAL HUSSAIN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate -on-Record for Petitioners.
- Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate -on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th June, 1990.
- Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate -on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate ‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 14th June, 1989, in C.R.No.139/D of 1989).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Inheritance-- Plaintiffs/petitioners' suit was decreed and a finding was recorded that deceased was a Shia
Such finding was, however, reversed in appeal and revision, wherein deceased was treated to be a Sunni and his property was divided according to law of inheritance applicable to that sect
Findings of fact rendered against plaintiffs/petitioners by the two higher Courts, notwithstanding acceptance of their plea by Trial Court, were unexceptionable
No infirmity, legal or of principle, having been discovered, nor there being any misreading or non-reading of evidence, no justification was found for interference
Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the plaintiffs side against the dismissal by the High Court of their civil revision which had arisen out of suit relating to inheritance. The petitioners' suit was decreed; but the respondents' appeal having been allowed on a finding of fact that Nazar Hussain deceased last owner was a Sunni, the petitioners' civil revision was also dismissed by the High Court on affirmation of the said finding of fact. Learned counsel has contended that the impugned judgment and the findings of fact affirmed therein are based on misreading of evidence. When questioned as to what are those items of evidence which have been misread, learned counsel could not point out any specific parts of the evidence. He, however, contended that the deceased used to give donation for Shia causes and also used to attend their Majalis. He also stated that the controversy relating to the performance of funeral ceremony whether in accordance with the Shia rites or the Sunni rites has also not been properly resolved. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of this petition and the point raised by him we are of the view that the findings of fact rendered all against the petitioners by the two higher Courts, notwithstanding the acceptance of their plea by the lower Court, are unexceptionable. No infirmity legal or of principle having been discovered nor there being any misreading or non‑reading, we do not find any justification for interference. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. AA./R‑180/S Leave refused.