Case Details

Citation(s)
2012 SLG 436 2012 SLD 436 2012 CLC 246
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No.624-D of 2011, decision dated: 8-06-2011
SYED IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

FATEH ULLAH

VS

NOOR AHMAD

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42,54

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42,54

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 92

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------Ss. 42 & 54---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.92---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction---Plaintiff had sought declaration to the effect that he being husband of deceased lady, was entitled to inherit from her estate; that mutation, whereby he had been deprived of the inheritance was illegal and ineffective qua his rights and that defendant should be permanently restrained from alienating the property in dispute---Trial Court and Appellate Court, had concurrently decreed the suit---Plaintiff by producing the trustworthy evidence had proved that deceased was his wife---Entry regarding death of deceased was made in the register of death entries wherein the plaintiff had been shown as husband of the deceased---Said entry which remained unrebutted was 50 years old and presumption of truth was attached to the same, unless proved otherwise---Register of birth was a public document and certified copy thereof was admissible in evidence under Art.92 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984; and could be safely relied upon---After death of deceased lady, the plaintiff had become a co-sharer in her property along with the remaining legal heirs and a co-sharer was deemed to be in possession of the joint property along with other co-sharers---Objection of the counsel for defendant that possession as a consequential relief had not been claimed by the plaintiff, had got no force---Concurrent findings advanced by courts below, were just and had -been passed in a lawful manner---No interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction was called for in the concurrent findings of the courts below, when same did not suffer from misreading or non-reading of evidence and there was no illegality or material irregularity in the said findings. Muhammad Saeed v. Muhammad Siddique. and 10 others 2010 MLD 855 and Abdur Razzaq and others v. Zahoor Ahmad and others 2005 CLC 556 ref. Alamgir Khan through L.Rs. and others v. Haji Abdul Sattar Khan and others 2009 SCMR 54 and Amir Abdullah v. Kafaitullah Khan 2008 SCMR 756 rel. Ch. Khawar Saddique Sahi for Petitioner. ORDER SYED IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.--- By means of this civil revision the petitioner…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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