2010 PLP 1786 (CLC)
GHULAM FATIMA — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, TOBA TEK SINGH and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 1786 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM FATIMA — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, TOBA TEK SINGH and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Lunacy Act (IV of 1912), (b) Lunacy Act (IV of 1912) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 1786 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Lunacy Act (IV of 1912), (b) Lunacy Act (IV of 1912) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 1786 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 1786 (CLC) (GHULAM FATIMA — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, TOBA TEK SINGH and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sarfraz Ahmed Qureshi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 62 & 63
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Appointment of guardian of a lunatic
Scope
Petitioner, in the Constitutional petition, had challenged the decision of Trial Court for dismissal of her application for the appointment of guardian of her lunatic brother on the ground that she was real sister and ultimate well-wisher of her brother thus entitled to be appointed as his guardian
Record revealed that statement made by brother (alleged lunatic) of the petitioner had made it clear that he was in his senses; though he was an old man with tender age and preferred to live with his nephews
Petitioner's brother was owner of agricultural lands, all her efforts were being made to grab immovable property of her brother
Claimed lunatic could not be compelled to live with his sister
Petitioner could not be appointed as a guardian, in circumstances
Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine.
Ss. 63 & 72
Appointment of guardian of lunatic
Legal heirs of a lunatic should not be appointed as his guardian unless a competent court, Collector after recording reasons in writing made such appointment.
Judgment & Decree
CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.
Through this petition, the petitioner has sought that the impugned order dated 17 6-2010 passed by learned District Judge Toba Tek Singh be set aside and Zaman Khan be declared as lunatic and the petitioner be appointed as guardian of Zaman Khan.
2. Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. The operative part of the impugned order is reproduced hereunder "On the last date Zaman Khan, said lunatic was summoned to appear personally. He has appeared in the court today. He is an old man and it is difficult for him to walk. A number of questions have been asked from him. He understands his benefit and loss. He has stated in the open court that his sister, the petitioner, wants to kill him. He also stated that he wants to live with his nephews/respondents. In these circumstances there is nothing wrong for Zaman Khan living with the respondents. There is no need to appoint his guardian. This application is dismissed".
4. The perusal of impugned order shows that the learned District Judge Toba Tek Singh summoned the said Zaman Khan and examined him whether he is a lunatic or In his senses. During examination by the learned District Judge, the said Zaman Khan who is admittedly an old man with tender age has categorically stated before the court that he understand his benefit and loss and his sister wants to kill him. He refused that the petitioner be appointed as his guardian and preferred that he would like to live with his nephews.
5. The perusal of the statement of Zaman Khan recorded before the learned District Judge makes it very clear that the said Zaman Khan is in his senses though he is an old man with tender age and he prefers to live with respondents Nos. 2 to 4.
6. In the petition, the petitioner has stated that she is the real sister and ultimate well-wisher of her brother Zaman Khan, therefore she be appointed as his guardian. This request could not be acceded in the light of the bar provided under section 72 of Lunacy Act which provides that legal heirs of a lunatic shall not be appointed to be the guardian of such lunatic persons unless a competent court or Collector after recording reasons in writing makes an appointment. Further to decide the instant writ petition, para 4 of the grounds of writ petition is very important whereby the petitioner contends that Zaman Khan is owner of agricultural land in District Toba Tek Singh, District Dadu and in Tehsil Khanpur, Rahim Yar Khan. All the efforts are being made to grab the immovable property of Zaman Khan who despite in his senses is repeatedly being declared a lunatic by the petitioner.
7. In the circumstances, the said Zaman Khan cannot be compelled to live with the petitioner and at the same time in the prevailing circumstances Ghulam Fatima cannot be appointed as his guardian. The writ petition is without any force, which is dismissed in limine. M.U.Y./G-56/L Petition dismissed.