Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MAJEED VS Respondent: ALLAH DADHonorable Justice Muhammad Afzal Zullah
1989 S C M R 2048
1989 S C M R 2048
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
MAJEED and 14 others Petitioners
Versus
ALLAH DAD and 15 others Respondents
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.476 of 1985, decided on 25th March, 1989.
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 15th April, 1985 of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No.185‑D of 1981).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners filed suit claiming property as full owner‑‑Petitioners could not substantiate the claim Predecessor- in‑interest of the petitioners had herself in a proceeding before lower Settlement/Revenue Authority admitted her a limited owner and distribution of property had already been made on that basis‑‑Order of High Court did not suffer from any error of law or fact‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Ahmad Hussain Bukhaxi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mahmood Ahmad Oureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
SAli Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 25th March, 1989.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the plaintiffs side in a suit for declaration, against the dismissal by the High Court, of their Civil Revision.
Mst.Sohandi alias Salotri the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners had migrated from India. The dispute relates to her claim to a land compensation in Pakistan and litigation ensuing there from. Ultimately the matter came up before the Civil Court. Her suit (claim to the property) was initially decreed on the basis of Sher Muhammad v. The Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner, Multan and 7 others (PLD 1968 Lah. 234) but ultimately was rejected on the basis of Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Sargodha v. Muhammad Shafi and others (PLD 1971 Supreme Court 791). In the meanwhile this very matter also passed through writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The petitioners' side having failed to establish either that Mst.Salotri was full owner or that she could get more than 1/4th share of the property, leave to appeal has now been sought
Learned counsel frankly admitted that if Mst.Salotri is not adjudged as full owner of the property in dispute the petitioners would have no case for leave to appeal.
We heard the learned counsel on the merits of the foregoing plea which is based on the claim of Mst. Salotri as full owner. He has not been able to substantiate the claim. She had obtained the property as limited owner. The distribution has rightly been made on that basis. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any error of law or fact. Mst.Salotri had herself in a proceeding before the lower Settlement/Revenue Authority admitted her being a limited owner. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused.
M.A.K./M‑985/S Leave refused.