| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2023 SLG 2285 2023 SLD 2285 2023 YLR 1961 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 1157 of 2011, decided on 9th December, 2022.Date of hearing: 11th November, 2022.
Before Rasaal Hasan Syed, J
Zulfiqar Ahmad Mangat for Petitioner. Badar Munir for
Respondent No.1.
Respondents Nos.2 to 5: Ex parte
Civil Revision No. 1157 of 2011, decided on 9th December, 2022.Date of hearing: 11th November, 2022.
Before Rasaal Hasan Syed, J
Zulfiqar Ahmad Mangat for Petitioner. Badar Munir for
Respondent No.1.
Respondents Nos.2 to 5: Ex parte
MAFAIZA BEGUM---Petitioner
VERSUS
GHAZWANA PERVEEN and others---Respondents
Law: Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961
Section: 4
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 42
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)--- ----S. 4---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42--- Suit for declaration---Share in estate of grandfather---Mutation of inheritance---New plea, raising of---Respondent/plaintiff claimed her share in estate of her deceased grandfather as she was daughter of pre-deceased son---Suit was decreed in favour of respondent/plaintiff by both the Courts below concurrently--- Validity--- In mutations under challenge revenue authorities allocated 1/3rd share in the estate to brothers of grandfather of respondent/plaintiff, which petitioner/ defendant supported in her written-statement---Question as to whether respondent/plaintiff would exclude brothers of her grandfather or that she would also get 1/3rdresidue of her deceased father was not raised in written-statement---No issue was framed nor any evidence was produced by petitioner/ defendant to raise or prove such plea---Even before Lower Appellate Court such question was not specifically raised as evident from the grounds of appeal and also the judgment of Lower Appellate Court---Petitioner/defendant could not raise any new plea that was not initially raised in pleadings or in evidence, for the first time before High Court---Law had to take its own course, and 1/3rd residue of deceased father of respondent/plaintiff after giving 1/3rd share to respondent / plaintiff was to be controlled by application of the rule that nearer in degree would exclude the more remote---High Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances. Mst. Zainab v. Kamal Khan alias Kamla PLD 1990 SC 1051; Mukhtar Ahmad v. Mst. Rasheeda Bibi and another 2003 SCMR 1664 and Mian Mazhar Ali and others v. Tahir Sarfraz and others PLD 2011 Lah. 23 rel. JUDGMENT RASAAL HASAN SYED, J.---This civil revision calls into question judgments and decree dated 06.4.2010 and 12.2.2011 of the courts below whereby suit for declaration instituted by respondent No.1 was decreed and appeal thereagainst was dismissed. 2. Respondent No.1 (Mst. Ghazwana Begum) instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that being daughter of Ehsan Ullah, predeceased…
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