P L D 1959 W (PLP)
Mst. JIWANI‑Petitioner Versus Mst. KHURSHID BIBI‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1959 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | Mst. JIWANI‑Petitioner Versus Mst. KHURSHID BIBI‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1959 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1959 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1959 W (PLP) (Mst. JIWANI‑Petitioner Versus Mst. KHURSHID BIBI‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Joshua Fazal Din for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), S. 21 (b)‑--Words "If the tenancy were agricultural land acquired by the original tenant"‑--Applicable sometimes to cases in which distinction is made between self‑acquired and ancestral properties
Not applicable to Christian tenants.
Judgment & Decree
S. 21 (b)‑--Words "If the tenancy were agricultural land acquired by the original tenant"‑--Applicable sometimes to cases in which distinction is made between self‑acquired and ancestral properties
Not applicable to Christian tenants. Joshua Fazal Din for Petitioner. Khurshid, who inherited a share in the tenancy granted under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, has died and his share in the tenancy has devolved on his sister Khurshid Bibi. This is in accordance with the rules of inheritance governing Christian families under the Succession Act. The petitioner, who also has a share in the same tenancy, is the daughter of the original tenant and should in fact have been accepted as the sole heir at the time of his death. This aspect of the case gives rise to a moral claim in her favour. But it is not permissible to act on her moral claims at this late stage when she did not ask for a change in the original order of the Collector giving a part of the inheritance of the original tenant to other relatives. The words " if the tenancy were agricultural land acquired by the original tenant " uSed in clause (b) of section 21 of the Act, do not make any difference in the present case. These words do not mean that we have now to find a successor of the original tenant. These words can sometimes make a difference where the law applicable to the parties makes a distinction between ancestral and self‑ acquired property. For the above reasons, I am satisfied that the order passed by the Collector and confirmed by the Commissioner is not in correct. I, therefore, dismiss this petition for revision. A. H. Petition dismissed.