| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 126 2020 SLD 126 2020 SCMR 72 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 1057 of 2010, decision Dated: 04-12-2018. Hearing Dated: 18-10-2018. (On appeal from the judgment/order Dated 23.9.2010 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench passed in C.R. No. 48-D of 2002)
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE YAHYA AFRIDI, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: M. Munir Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmood A. Sheikh, Advocate-on-Record
Respondent(s) by: Malik Muhammad Aslam, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record
Civil Appeal No. 1057 of 2010, decision Dated: 04-12-2018. Hearing Dated: 18-10-2018. (On appeal from the judgment/order Dated 23.9.2010 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench passed in C.R. No. 48-D of 2002)
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE YAHYA AFRIDI, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: M. Munir Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmood A. Sheikh, Advocate-on-Record
Respondent(s) by: Malik Muhammad Aslam, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record
BASHEER AHMED AND OTHERS
VS
MST. FATIMA BIBI (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS
Law: Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912
Section: 19(a),20,21,21(b)
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)--- ----Ss. 20 & 21 [as applicable in erstwhile State of Bahawalpur]---Succession to tenancy---Tenancy granted to sons of deceased-tenant to the exclusion of daughters---Succession of tenancy rights after death of sons---Scope---Upon death of original tenant his two sons succeeded to the tenancy rights to the exclusion of three daughters in terms of S. 20 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 ('the Act')---When both sons died in 1940, then under the provisions of S. 21(b) of the Act the succession was determined as though the original tenant had died, the succession being treated as having opened up at that time---Furthermore, at that time the relevant rules of the Islamic law of inheritance were applied---In those terms, all of original tenant's heirs (including in particular the three daughters) then became entitled to a share---Legality---One of the daughters (i.e. the plaintiff) had brought her suit for share in tenancy rights after both of herbrothers had died---Question of plaintiff's claim to a share in the tenancy rights that devolved from her father, was to be governed by S. 21 and not S. 20 of the Act, and in terms of the general law of inheritance relating to Muslims---Plaintiff was entitled, as a daughter, to an appropriate share in the tenancy (devolving from her father, whatsoever form the tenancy might have taken); of course that also meant that the plaintiff was not entitled to any share in the tenancy from her uncle (i.e. father's brother). Mst. Imam Bibi v. Allah Ditta and others PLD 1989 SC 384 applied. Umar Din and another v. Mst. Sharifan and another PLD 1995 SC 686 distinguished. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: MUNIB AKHTAR, J.--- These reasons are to be read in continuation of the order dated 18.10.2018 whereby this appeal was partly allowed. The order just referred to was in the following terms: "Learned counsel for the contesting parties have been heard. 2. The tenancy in issue was granted to two brothers, Mustali and Wali Muhammad, by the State of Bahalwapur in 1937. The said State (being a Princely State) had adopted (subject to certain adaptations not presently…
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