1987 PLP 1925 (SCMR)
QADIR BAKHSH and others — Petitioners Versus AHMAD BAKHSH and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1925 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | QADIR BAKHSH and others — Petitioners Versus AHMAD BAKHSH and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Custom (Punjab) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1925 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Custom (Punjab) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1925 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1925 (SCMR) (QADIR BAKHSH and others — Petitioners Versus AHMAD BAKHSH and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 18th July, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment and decree dated 17-12-1979 of the Lahore High Court in R.S.A. No. 573 of 1985).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Succession- Presumption as to application of custom to Muslim in urban areas--Leave to appeal granted to consider contentions that it was not the case of respondent that he and his family were governed by Custom, that there was no presumption in law that Muslims living in Urban areas were governed by Customary law and that High Court and District Judge had erred in law in raising such presumption without any basis whatsoever. ORDER
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioners in this petition for special leave to appeal are the children of Mst. Hayat Begum who was the real sister of respondent No.1 and wife of respondent No.2. The dispute between the petitioners and respondent No.1 relates to the property which was allegedly left on her demise by Mst. Fatet Bibi, who was the mother of respondent No.1 and Mst. Hayat Bibi. The trial Court decreed the petitioners suit for partition but in appeal the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the suit on the assumption that as Mst. Fateh Bibi had died before Independence the parties were governed by customs under which the sisters were excluded by their brothers in the matter of inheritance. The judgment of the learned Additional District Judge was upheld by the High Court in second appeal.
2. In support of this petition, it is contended that it was no the case of respondent No.1 that he and his family were governed by the Customs and that there was no presumption in law that Muslim living in the urban areas were governed by the customary law. The High Court and the Additional District Judge, therefore, erred it law in raising this presumption without any basis whatsoever.
3. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners requires consideration. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.2,
500. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to place additional documents, if any, on the file. S.Q./Q-9/S Leave granted.