Case Details

Citation(s)
1995 SLD 708 = 1995 CLC 380
Board of Revenue, Punjab
R.O.R. No. 421 of 1990, decided on 27th July, 1994.
Presented By: Before Akhtar Said, Member (Judicial)
Mian Saeed Ahmad for Petitioners. Mehr Haq Nawaz for
Respondents.

Malik NAZAR HUSSAIN and 6 others---Petitioners

VERSUS

MUHAMMAD                 INAM-UL-HAQ                 and another---Respondents

Law: West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967

Section: 45

  West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)--- ----S. 45---Mutation of inheritance depriving daughter of her share of inheritance---Remedy---Daughter's relationship with deceased was not denied by sons of deceased who had got the entire inheritance of deceased in their names---Daughter being admittedly heir of deceased, mutation of inheritance not attested on basis of Islamic law of inheritance was ab inito void and same could not become valid merely with passage of time---Relationship of daughter with deceased having been admitted, provisions of S. 45(a), West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 were attracted whereby on basis of agreed facts, periodical record as also record of rights could be corrected. West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)--- ----S. 45 & 53---Mutation of inheritance depriving daughter of deceased land owner from her share of inheritance---Relationship of such daughter having been admitted with deceased, no intricate or difficult question of law or title was involved, necessitating to refer parties to Civil Court---If there was any private settlement between parties, of which no proof had been provided by beneficiaries (sons) onus was on them to go to Civil Court and get the same established---Controversy in case was not one where entries in successive Jamabandis would take the mutation (proposed to be entered on basis of admitted facts) out of jurisdiction of Revenue Court. Mian Saeed Ahmad for Petitioners. Mehr Haq Nawaz for Respondents. ORDER One Karim Bakhsh died on 16-10-1948. His Inheritance Mutation No.2859 was sanctioned on 11-11-1948. In that mutation the property was transferred to the sons only and the daughter of the deceased was deprived of her share. The sons are represented by the petitioners and the daughter by the respondents. The respondents went in an appeal to the Collector who dismissed it on 26-8-1989. They went to the Additional Commissioner in a revision petition which was accepted on 12-2-1990. This order has been impugned here. The most important fact in this…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register