Find a Lawyer

Revision No. 1066 of 1964‑65, decided on 25th October 1965.

Ss. 2 & S‑Devolution under S. S‑Provision of S. 2 to be kept in view‑Such devolution also covered by S. 4 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961).

Raja Said Akbar, M. S. Baqir and Muhammad Shafi for Petitioner.

Ch. Karam Elahi Chouhan for Respondents.

This order will dispose of the following four revisions:‑----

(1) Mst. Sarwar Bibi v. Mst. Inayat Khatun and others (Revision No. 1066).

(2) Mst. Sarwar Bibi v. Mst. Inayat Khatun and others (Revision No. 1066).

(3) Mst. Sarwar Bibi v. Mst. Inayat Khatun and others (Revision No. 1066).

(4) Mst. Sarwar Bibi v. Mst. Inayat Khatun and others (Revision No. 1066).

These four revisions have been filed against orders dated the 28th of April 1965, passed by Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan, whereby the appeals preferred by the respondents were accepted.

The facts of the case are that one Ghulam Hassan died on the 2nd of August 1944 and Mst. Inayat Khatoon, respondent No. 1, succeeded him as a limited owner. On the 1st of May 1964, a mutation for the termination of the limited interests was entered and was sanctioned on 12‑5‑1964 in the manner in which Mst. Sarwar Bibi daughter of Ghulam Qadir, a pre‑deceased son of. Ghulam Hassan, was ignored. Mst. Sarwar Bibi went in appeal to the Collector and the Collector ordered the sanctioning of the mutation in a manner in which Mst. Sarwar Bibi was to get 14/24 shares of the property. Against these orders, the respondents Nos. 6 to 11 put in four appeals before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) and they were accepted on the ground that, under Article 19 of the Constitution Amendment Act I of 1964, no law could be made which would be repugnant to the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and Sunnah. The. petitioner has come up in revision.

I have heard the learned counsel for the respondents. He has not pressed the point upon which the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue) relied. He has, however, contended that the words of section 5 of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act V of 1962 are different from those of section 2 of the said Act. In section 2, the words used are "subject to the provision of any enactment for the time being in force" and it is conceded that, so far as this section is concerned, the Family Laws Ordinance of 1961 is applicable. According to the learned counsel, if the same words were used in section 5 of the Act, section 4 of the Ordinance would be applicable. I am afraid. I cannot accept this contention. This would be merely an unnecessary repetition. Sections 2, 3 and 5 of the Act have to be read together. According to section 2, the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance would be applicable. Under section 3, the limited interest has to be determined. After this determination, the provisions laid down in section 5 have to be followed. According to those provisions, the property has to devolve in the manner laid down therein. In the first instance, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that devolution does not mean succession. Here again I cannot accept this suggestion. Devolution is a process which includes succession. The Legislature did not use the words "succession" for the simple reason that it had laid down a number of contingencies. Secondly, he stated that the word "succession" used in section 4 of the Ordinance was limited in its scope. He was of the view that this was succession .as mentioned in section 4 of the Ordinance which only meant intestate succession. This question is entirely irrelevant so far as the main question for determination is concerned, namely, whether, in the absence of the words mentioned above, the Family Laws Ordinance would be applicable, to the case of devolution under section 5 of the Act or not. After hearing the learned conns81, for the respondent at length, I have no hesitation in my mind that, when devolution takes place under section 5 of the Act provisions of section 2 have to be kept in view and in that case, devolution will be covered by the provision of section 4 of the Family Laws Ordinance also.

In these circumstances, the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner' (Revenue) were not justified. I, therefore, accept all the four revisions, set aside the orders passed by the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue) and direct that the mutations in this case shall be decided according to the principles laid down by the learned Collector.

K. M. A. Petitions accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.