2005 PLP 1576 (CLD)
Mst. PARVEEN KAUSAR and 6 others — Appellants Versus BANK OF PUNJAB through Authorized Officer — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1576 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. PARVEEN KAUSAR and 6 others — Appellants Versus BANK OF PUNJAB through Authorized Officer — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1576 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1576 (CLD)?
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: 2005 PLP 1576 (CLD) (Mst. PARVEEN KAUSAR and 6 others — Appellants Versus BANK OF PUNJAB through Authorized Officer — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Aqil Malik for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 9, 19 & 22
Original owner of property in question having died, his property devolved upon his widow, four sons and two daughters
Widow of deceased inherited 1/8th share while sons and daughters had inherited their due shares according to Islamic Law of inheritance--Property in question, in circumstances could not be sold as a whole and the Court should have determined shares of appellants/share-holders and only could have put on sale shares of those appellants against whom decree was passed, and not the entire property
Impugned order was set aside and matter was sent back to Banking Court for determining exact share of each appellant.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellants that the property was originally owned by Muhammad Shafique and his wife Mst. Parveen Kausar to the extent of 3/4th and 1/4th share respectively. Muhammad Shafique died and his share in the property devolved upon four sons, two daughters and widow; out of this share, the widow inherited 1/8th share while the brothers and sisters have inherited their due share according to the Muhammadan Law of inheritance; resultantly, the property in question cannot be sold as whole for the decree, passed against the appellants Nos.5, 6 and 7 and the Court in fact, should have determined the shares of the judgments-debtors and only A could have put on sale such share and not the entire property.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find that the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants are correct, therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is sent back to the learned Banking Court for determining the exact shares of each of the present appellants, and thereafter, to sell the shares of only appellants Nos.5, 6 and
7. This appeal is accordingly disposed of. H.B.T./P- 151/L Order accordingly.