P L D (Rev (PLP)
SAMUEL and others‑Appellants Versus MEGHA‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D (Rev (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SAMUEL and others‑Appellants Versus MEGHA‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D (Rev (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D (Rev (PLP)?
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: P L D (Rev (PLP) (SAMUEL and others‑Appellants Versus MEGHA‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sardar Muhammad Iqbal for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 20‑Adoptzon evidenced by unregistered will‑Not given eject to.
Judgment & Decree
H. A. MAJID.‑The petitioners claim to be the sons of an adopted son of Bagh deceased. The adoption is intended to be proved by means of a will which is unregistered. Even if the adoption were proved, the provisions of section 20 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, would stand against their claim to nomination as successors of Bagh deceased. The legal provision is that an adopted son or his successor can be treated as lineal descendants "only, if the adoption was made by means of a registered deed." The, failure to get the said will registered is fatal to the petitioners 1 case. It will not open to a Revenue Officer to start looking into the purpose for which the legislature prescribed the registration of the adoption deed. I cannot, therefore, accept the argument that the adoption must be considered effective in this case, because the respondent does not deny that the will in question was executed by the deceased. The Collector has not stated anywhere in his decision that the present respondent agreed to the present petitioners being given half of the tenancy in question. The Collector merely stated that his decision to distribute the tenancy in equal parts between the two parties was influenced by the will. He, however, did not appreciate the point correctly. The respondent relied on that document merely by way of argument, whereas the reliance of the present petitioners on that document was basic. The respondent merely said: "It is not open to the other party to deny the fact that I am a real nephew of Bagh deceased. The very document, on which they are basing their claim, states I am his nephew". Such a statement cannot be counted as basing the claim on that document. For the above reasons, I hold that the petitioners cannot object to the respondent being nominated as the sole successor of the tenancy in question. I, therefore, dismiss their petition for revision. A. H. Petition dismissed.