Find a Lawyer

SARDAR MUHAMMAD versus MST. SHARIFAN BIBI

Article 42 Civil Code of Conduct (v. 1908), AXXIII, R3 Constitution of Pakistan \ (1973), Article 185 (3) was not issued in order to effect the fact of the facts under the court under the father's view. The findings related to, in the first period of litigation, consent to the share of his brother's widow and accordingly it was decided that the widow later gifted her land in favor of her adopted daughter, the plaintiff. Gave and retaliated for a gift change and the widow claimed her share of the property held by the trial court. The lower appellate court dismissed the case and appeal simultaneously. The verdict of the two courts, respectively, maintained by the High Court under the jurisdiction of the review, was not that the plaintiff's case was deprived of his legal part as a result of the widow's excessive transfer of land. The issue of the plaintiff's gift before the High Court was that the trial court did not compile appropriate cases and this cannot be appreciated in its evidence. This point of view, which resulted in a serious miscarriage of justice that forced such a new application into service, was not even mentioned in the memorandum of appeal for the appeal point which The petition was not made before the lower court and could not be mentioned in the petition for leave of appeal. Not allowed to be raised at the hearing of the petition The plaintiff was the successor of the predecessor's husband in the interest of the defendants but the land belonging exclusively to the widow and she transferred it to 1/4 part of the Islamic law. Did not give the land to the plaintiffs immigration advocates phone number from Rawalpindi lawyer