Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42,54

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 185(3)

Law: Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961

Section: 5

Law: West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, (XVII of 1967)

Section: 42

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss.42 & 54---West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S.42--­Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction---Plaintiff claiming to be entitled to inherit entire estate of deceased as his sole legal heir/brother, challenged mutation of inheritance sanctioned in favour of defendants as daughters of deceased to extent of 2/3rd share as void and ineffective on his rights---Plaintiffs alleged that defendants mother was married with one MD son of GM, who died in India before partition and defendants were born from the wedlock in India; and thereafter defendants' mother married with plaintiff's brother (deceased) namely MD son of ID---Trial Court decreed the suit---Appellate Court set aside the decree and dismissed the suit, which decision was upheld by High Court in revision---Validity---Plaintiffs could not prove that defendants were the daughters of said MD son of GM, with whom their mother had married in India---Both the Courts below had given much weight to defendants' evidence being more relevant in comparison to the plaintiff's evidence and had rightly found the defendants to be the daughters of deceased---Appellate Court had correctly appreciated and believed the evidence of two defendants' witnesses hailing from same village, where marriage of defendants' mother had taken place with MD son of ID---Defendants had placed on record copies of Nikahnamas and identity cards to establish that they were daughters of MD (brother of plaintiff)---Copy of Nikahnama produced did not require production of witnesses to prove the same---Inheritance mutation had been sanctioned by Revenue Officer in "Jalsa Aam" after having verified that defendants were daughters of deceased MD ---Lambardar in whose presence mutation was attested had supported the defendants' version---Plaintiff had not challenged inheritance mutation before revenue hierarchy, which remedy was available to him according to law---Plaintiff could not point out any illegality in impugned justifying interference by Supreme Court---Petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Rasul Bibi v.…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492