1995SCMR341 (PLP)
MUZAFFAR KHAN and 16 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus ABDUL WAHAB and 31 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995SCMR341 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan, Actg. CJ. Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ |
| Parties | MUZAFFAR KHAN and 16 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus ABDUL WAHAB and 31 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (V of 1962)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995SCMR341 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (V of 1962)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995SCMR341 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan, Actg. CJ. Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995SCMR341 (PLP) (MUZAFFAR KHAN and 16 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus ABDUL WAHAB and 31 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. Safdar Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants
- Jan Muhammad, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 22nd February, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order of Peshawar High Court Peshawar, dated 20‑11‑1991 in Civil Revision No. 333 of 1990). ‑‑‑‑S. 2‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185‑‑‑Termination of limited estate held by widow of deceased land‑owner‑‑‑Petitioners claiming to be collaterals of deceased land‑owner claiming their share in property in question‑‑‑Pedigree‑table on record did not show that petitioners were collaterals of deceased land owner in third degree as claimed by them‑‑‑High Court did not interfere with concurrent findings of subordinate Courts on alleged relationship of parties‑‑‑Judgments in previous litigation between wid6w of deceased land‑owner and father of petitioners did not show that petitioners or their father was collateral of deceased land‑owner‑‑‑Judgments in previous litigation would not detract from concurrent findings of Courts below on the question in controversy‑‑‑Interference was thus, not warranted in the judgment rendered by the High Court in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, ACTG. C.J.‑‑‑This appeal by special leave arises out of a declaratory suit brought by the appellants with regard to their share in the property left by Abdul Majid and Abdul Karim who, according to them, were their collaterals in the third degree. The suit. was dismissed by the trial Court and their appeal before the Additional District Judge also failed. They then filed a revision petition in the High Court which partly succeeded.
2. The appellants are the heirs of Zarif Khan who was the son of Najab Khan. Their claim to a share in the property left by Abdul Karim and Abdul Majid is based on the assertion that Najab Khan was a brother of Jehangir Khan, both being sons of Azad Khan. It is common ground between the parties that Jehangir Khan had two sons, Abdul Majid and Abdul Karim. Both died issueless. On the death of Abdul Majid his property was inherited under the custom by his widow, Mst. Tabani, as a limited estate holder. Her limited interest now stands terminated.
3. After appraising the evidence led before it the trial Court held that the appellants had not been able to establish that Najab Khan and Jehangir Khan were brothers. In arriving at this conclusion it relied upon the entries in the Revenue Record relating to the period beginning from 1895 and ending with 1928. In the Pedigree. Tables prepared during this period Jehangir Khan was shown as the lone son of Azad Khan.
4. The High Court did not interfere with the concurrent finding of the subordinate Courts on the alleged relationship between Najab Khan and Jehangjr Khan. Before us learned counsel for the appellants contends that in recording their findings on this question the subordinate Courts had overlooked some judgments in the previous litigation between Mst. Tabani and Zarif Khan, father of the appellants. He has read those judgments before us but these do not indicate that Najab Khan was a brother of Jehangir Khan. All that is being stated therein is that the parties to the litigation were reversioners inter se. This will hardly lead to the inference that Najab Khan and Jehangir Khan were brothers. In the circumstances, the judgments in the previous litigations upon which the learned counsel heavily relies do not detract from the concurrent finding of the subordinate Courts on the question. This appeal is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. AA./M‑2071/S Appeal dismissed.