1975 PLP 196 (SCMR)
NOOR MUHAMMAD ETC. — Petitioners Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR ETC. — Respondents
| Citation | 1975 PLP 196 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NOOR MUHAMMAD ETC. — Petitioners Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR ETC. — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act (XII of 1957)- |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1975 PLP 196 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act (XII of 1957)- as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1975 PLP 196 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1975 PLP 196 (SCMR) (NOOR MUHAMMAD ETC. — Petitioners Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR ETC. — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Inayatullah, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Wajid Hussain Advocate- on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 5th April 1974.
- Ch. Inayatullah, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Wajid Hussain Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court dated the 17th of April 1973, in Review Application No. 9/C of 1973).
Ss. 7 & 18(5)--Will--Evacuee property-Cannot be subject- matter of will.
Judgment & Decree
SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑
This petition for special leave to appeal filed on the tad of July 197.3, has become barred lay 147 days. It is from the order of a, learned Single Judge of the. Lahore High Court dismissing a review petition on the 17th of April 1973. It appears that the property iii dispute was evacuee property, and it was allotted to one Majid who gave it by a 'will' in the year 1954 to his sister- in‑law, who in turn gave it by `will' to her brother's son. 'The petitioner brought a suit challenging the validity of the two 'wills', and the suit was decreed. The decree was armed in appeal by the learned District Judge. On second appeal before the High Court, the suit was dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction inasmuch as the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide a dispute regarding evacuee property. The review application was from this order, and it was rightly dismissed as a to 'will' could be made .in respect of evacuee property. The petition is thus not only barred by limitation but has no merit in it, and it is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.