1989 PLP 1118 (SCMR)
Mst. KANEEZ FATIMA ‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL RASHID and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1118 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. KANEEZ FATIMA ‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL RASHID and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1118 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1118 (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: 1989 PLP 1118 (SCMR) (Mst. KANEEZ FATIMA ‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL RASHID and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sh. Abdul Sattar Zahid, Advocate (absent) and SAbid Nawaz, Advocate -on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 5th September, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 31‑1‑1984 in C. R. No.89 of 1984). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Questions of fact stood concluded by Courts below and they were not such so as to attract either the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court or the jurisdiction of Supreme Court for interference‑‑Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a widow in a matter relating to the succession certificate vis‑a‑vis the death and assets of her deceased husband, against the dismissal by the High Court. of her Civil Revision. The succession certificate was granted in favour of the respondents side regarding bank deposits about Rs.40,
000. The petitioner had resisted the claim of the respondents on the ground that the amount in the deposit belonged to her and the same was lying in her husband's Benami account. Her plea was rejected. The learned Civil Judge, however, allowed 1/8th share of the petitioner in accordance with the Sharia law. In appeal, her share was enhanced to 1/4th otherwise the rejection of her plea regarding Benami account was upheld. The learned Judge in the High Court declined to interfere with the findings of the learned two Courts below and accordingly dismissed the Civil Revision. After hearing the learned counsel, we do not consider it a fit case for the grant of leave to appeal because the questions of fact stand concluded by the learned Courts below. They are not such so as to attract either the revisronal jurisdiction of the High Court or the jurisdiction of this Court for the grant of leave to appeal. The same accordingly is refused. M.BA./K‑100/S Leave refused.