| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1963 SLG 493 1963 SLD 493 1963 PLD 543 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1962, decided on 28th June 1963.
S. A. RAHMAN, FAZLE-AKBAR AND HAMOODUR RAHMAN, JJ
Bashir Ahmad Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Muhammad Bux Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Virasat Hussain Naqvi Attorney for Appellants. Said Akbar Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Noor Ahmad Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Kha
Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1962, decided on 28th June 1963.
S. A. RAHMAN, FAZLE-AKBAR AND HAMOODUR RAHMAN, JJ
Bashir Ahmad Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Muhammad Bux Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Virasat Hussain Naqvi Attorney for Appellants. Said Akbar Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Noor Ahmad Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Kha
GHULAM AKBAR AND others--Appellants
VS
Mst. IRSHAD BEGUM AND others--Respondents
Law:
Section:
(a) Custom (Punjab)---(Succession)-Widow "normally" does not take a share of "inheritance" "with sons of deceased"[Widow, in presence of son by other wife, having had half share of property, such share, held, in circumstances of case, to have been obtained by way of "inheritance" not in lieu of "maintenance"]-["Rattigan's Digest of Customary Law", 13th Edn. by Om Parkash Aggarwalla.] (b) Custom (Punjab)---(General)-Custom, collection of empirical rules-Cannot be extended by logical or analogical reasoning. (c) Custom (Punjab)-(Succession)-(Chatha Jats, Gujranwala District)-Daughter's daughter-(Non-ancestral property)-Dictum that daughter's daughter must be preferred to collaterals even though her own mother had never succeeded to property-Not approved-No speck rule of custom proved-Muslim (Shariat) Law applied- [Inayat v. Mst. Bharai A I R 1928 Lah. 291=9 Lah. 180 ; Mst. Kaman v. Ghafoor Ali A I R 1928 Lah. 280 ; Sanata v. Sahib Bibi A I R 1941 Lah. 94 ; A I R 1928 Lah. 280 ; Mohindar Kaur v. Hira Singh A I R 1943 Lah. 308 and Ali v. Shahu P L D 1956 F C 92 distinguished ; Mst. Harnam Kaur v. Ratna A I R 1949 E P 267 and Hashmat Ali v. Mst. Nasib-ul-Nissa 1925 P C 99 considered ; Hamira v. Ram Singh 134 P R 1907 ; Noor Muhammad v. Muhammad Yar P L D 1951 Lah. 132 and Fatima Bibi v. Nur Muhammad Shah P L D 1951 Lah. 147 mentioned]. JUDGMENT S. A. RAHMAN, J.-The facts giving rise to this appeal by special leave are as follows :- The property in dispute belonged originally to one, Piran Ditta, a Chatha Jat of Wazirabad Tehsil, in the Gujranwala District. He died in 191 8 being survived by a son Hussain Khan from one wife, his second wife, Mst. Hayat Bibi, and the latter's daughter, Mst. Talea Bibi. On the death of Piran Ditta, the Revenue Authorities mutated half his land in favour of his son, Hussain Khan, and the other half in favour of Mst. Hayat Bibi. Hussain Khan died on the 29th October 1918, and was succeeded by his son, Nawab Khan. The last-named too died unmarried and issueless, in 1922 and the remaining half of the property of Piran Ditta which had devolved on Nawab Khan, was also mutated in the name of Mst. Hayat Bibi. She continued to hold the whole…
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