1988 PLP 1320 (SCMR)
S. AZHAR HUSSAIN SHAH and others — Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD ARSHAD and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1320 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, C. J. , Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | S. AZHAR HUSSAIN SHAH and others — Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD ARSHAD and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (V of 1962) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1320 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (V of 1962) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1320 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, C. J. , Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1320 (SCMR) (S. AZHAR HUSSAIN SHAH and others — Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD ARSHAD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Fazal-i-Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. Respondents: Ex parte.
- Date of hearing: 19th April, 1988.
- Fazal‑i‑Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants. Respondents: Ex parte.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 1D-3-1979 of the Lahore High Court in R.F.A. No. 9 of 1969). --S.2--West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance (XIII of 1983), S.2-A--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(2)(d)--Custom (Punjab)--Succession--Sale of agricultural land-- Declaratory suit--Competency of--Sale of agricultural land- Subsequently minor sons of vendor instituting suit through their mother seeking declaration that sale after the demise of vendor would not affect their reversionary rights as it was illegal and of no effect- Suit dismissed as incompetent because no declaratory relief could be had in custom in view of Act (V of 1962) and because plaintiffs respondents had no locus standi to file the suit--High Court, on appeal, remanded case for deciding suit on merits--Order impugned- Suit being incompetent under S.2-A of Ordinance (XIII of 1983), order of High Court allowing appeal and remanding case for trial on merits, held, was against the provisions of law and was thus set aside. Muzaffar Khan v. Mst. Roshan Jan P L D 1984 S C 394 and Abdul Ghafoor v. Muhammad P L D 1985 S C 407 rel.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.‑‑This is a direct appeal under Article 185(2) (d) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are that respondent No.3 herein sold agricultural land measuring 590 Kanals and 9 Marlas situate in Chak No‑.37, Tehsil Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura to Lt.‑Col. (Retd.) S.Mazhar Hussain Shah predecessor -in‑interest of the respondents by a registered sale‑deed dated 9‑6‑1964. Four years later on 3rd of June,.1968, respondents Nos.l and 2, the minor sons of respondent No.3 through their mother Mst. Fazal Begum instituted a suit in 'the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sheikhupura to seek a declaration that the impugned sale after the demise of respondent No.3 will not affect the reversionary rights of the said respondents as it was illegal and of no effect. This suit was resisted on the ground that it was incompetent as no declaratory relief could be had under custom in view of Act V of 1962 and further that the contesting respondents had no locus standi to file the suit. The trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree, the respondents filed a regular first appeal in the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, which was allowed by judgment dated 10‑3‑1979 and the case was remanded to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sheikhupura, for deciding the suit on merits. The learned counsel for the appellants relied on section 2‑A of Ordinance XIII of 1983 to contend that the suit was incompetent and in support of it also relied on Muzaffar Khan v. Mst. Roshan Jan, P L D 1984 S C 394 and Abdul Ghafoor v. Muhammad P L D 1985 S C
407. Upon an examination of the contention, we are of the view that the order of the High Court in allowing the appeal and remanding the case for trial on merits is against the provision of law, and, therefore, merits setting aside and we do so accordingly. The suit stands dismissed and the appeal is allowed, but with no order as to costs. M.I./5‑146/S Appeal allowed.