Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. 345 of 1958‑59, decided on 18th August 1959.
para. 11--- Permission to make gifts‑Prospective‑ donees neither entitled to inherit from nor dependent on appellant‑Order of Commissioner refusing permission not interfered.
Bashir Ahmad for Appellant.
This is an appeal filed against an order, dated the 29th of June 1959, passed by the Land Commissioner, D. I. Khan whereby he refused to permit the appellant to make the gifts of the land in question in favour of his mother and his aunt.
The facts of the case are that the appellant put in an applica tion under paragraph 11 of the Martial Law Regulation No. 64 seeking permission to make the gifts mentioned above. It was found that when succession opened to the appellant in respect of the property situated in Mianwali, Mst. Amiran Bibi was not a person entitled to inherit as the parties were governed by Customary Law. So far as Mst. Fazal Khatoon was concerned, it was conceded that she was a person entitled to inherit but, as she had received property from her husband, she was not consi dered to be dependent on the appellant. Both the requests were, therefore, refused. Hence this appeal.
I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. So far, as the Mianwali property is concerned, it is quite clear that Mst. Amiran Bibi would not be a person entitled to inherit.
As regards Mst. Fazal Khatoon, she was a person entitled to inherit in respect of the property situated in Bannu District because succession opened to the appellant after the' application of the Shariat Law to the former North‑West Frontier Province She, however, did not get her share of the property and filed a suit.
That suit resulted in a compromise in accordance with which she agreed to receive a fixed quantity of grain in lieu of her share in the land. It cannot, therefore, be said that she was a person who, instead of inheriting her share, became dependent upon the appellant by any local usage or custom. She actually agreed to get her share not in the form of land but in the form of grain. Moreover, it is established that she has received about 115 kanals of land from her deceased husband, K. B. Saif ullah Khan.
In these circumstances, no interference is called for. The appeal fails and is rejected hereby.
S. Q. Appeal rejected.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer