P L D 1961 W (PLP)
NASIR AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ALI AND OHTER‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1961 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Nasir Ahmad, Member Board, of Revenue, |
| Parties | NASIR AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ALI AND OHTER‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1961 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 1961 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Nasir Ahmad, Member Board, of Revenue,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1961 W (PLP) (NASIR AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ALI AND OHTER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Khalil‑ur‑Rehman for Petitioners.
- Abdul Rahim and Ghulam Ali Alvi for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Mutation‑Proceedings summary in character‑Decision not a determination of title Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887), S. 34.
Judgment & Decree
Revision Side No. 55 of 1960‑61, decided on ‑7th February 1961, District Lahore. Mutation‑Proceedings summary in character‑Decision not a determination of title Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887), S.
34. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman for Petitioners. Abdul Rahim and Ghulam Ali Alvi for Respondents. The property in dispute was owned by Mst. Jawai, deceased mother of the respondent, Mst Inayat Bibi. On Mst. Jawai's death a dispute arise regarding inheritance of her estate, which was contested by the collaterals of the husband and those who would have succeeded Mst. Jawai under the Shariat. Entries iii the jamabandi did not indicate that the deceased had merely a life interest in the property but an anomalous entry existed in shajra nasb running as follows:‑ Mst. Jawai widow of Jamala is waris and qabiz. A reference made to the original jamabandi which has come from India failed to give a clue whether Mst. Jawai had succeded Jamala as the shares held by the various successors of Jamala are not in a ratio which would bear this out. The learned Additional Commissioner to whom the matter went up in appeal assumed in these circumstances that Mst. Jawai held the property as a full owner and decided the inheritance accordingly. As would appear from the facts stated above no reasons exist for me to differ from the Additional Commissioner, particularly when another remedy is open to the petitioner namely a recourse to the Civil Courts. It would bear repetition if I were to state again that mutation proceedings are merely summary in character and beyond shifting the onus of proof do not determine questions of title. This revision petition stands dismissed. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.