Case Details

Citation(s)
2002 SLG 1402 2002 SLD 1402 2002 SCMR 1330
Supreme Court of Pakistan
hearing DATE : 7-02-2002. (On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 16-11-2001 passed in Civil Revision No,728 of 1991)
MUNIR A. SHEIKH AND FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, JJ
Malik Noor Muhammad Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondents

ABDUL HAQ and another

VS

Mst. SURRYA BEGUM and others

Law:

Section:

(a) Islamic Law --Will---Will made by deceased in favour of non-heir(s) would be effective even without consent of heir(s) of the deceased. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S.42---Qanun--e-Shahadat- (10 of 1984), Art.64---West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S.42---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Suit for declaration---S died in year 1960 leaving behind one son namely A, whereas his other son namely M had predeceased him--­ Inheritance mutation of S was sanctioned on 16-2-1961 in favour of defendants on the basis of will=--Plaintiffs' claim was that they were sons of M. whereas defendants were not his daughters, but were daughters of 'N, previous husband of their mother, thus, were not entitled to inherit the whole property of S---Trial Court disnussed the suit finding that defendants were daughters of M---Appellate Court decreed the suit, but High Court in revision set aside the decree and dismissed the suit---Contention of plaintiff was that in view of direct evidence of defendants' mother to the effect that defendants were born from her previous wedlock with N, it could not be said that defendants were daughters of M---Validity---Defendants' mother had certainly an interest to support plaintiffs (her sons) in order to retain the property in family so that defendants-daughters might not have any share therein and their husbands might not get the same---Plaintiffs had not led evidence about inheritance of N (previous husband of defendants' mother) in order to show that after his death, inheritance mutation of his property had been sanctioned in favour of his widow and daughters---Such direct evidence having been withheld, mere statement of defendants' mother to support her sons would not be sufficient to deprive defendants of their status as daughters of M---None of the parties to the suit being heirs of M (predeceased son of S) were entitled to inherit the property of S in presence of A---Will made in favour of defendants, thus, was not a will made in favour of any heir of S, as such same was effective even without consent of A---Plaintiffs claiming property through A as his heirs had filed the suit in 1979, about nine years…
🔒
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