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.
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 678 of 1980, decided on 16th August, 1983.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 1‑3‑1980 in W.P. No.904‑R of 1974).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Sched.‑‑Transfer of evacuee property on basis of inheritance‑‑Writ petition challenging respondent's parentage and her right to inherit dismissed by High Court‑‑Petitioner's counsel failing to urge any point worth consideration to satisfy Court regarding any infirmity legal or otherwise on real question of fact relating to identity and parentage of respondent‑‑Technical points raised already duly attended to by High Court‑‑Held, case not a fit one for grant of leave to appeal.
Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Shazad Jhangir, Advocate Supreme Court for the Settlement Department.
Date of hearing: 16th August, 1983.
.‑‑ This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a land settlement case. The controversy relates to the inheritance of one Lakha who died in India. Petitioners are the legal representatives of Kamala a son of Lakha. Mst. Fatima now represented by her legal representatives, (the respondents) was held by the Settlement authorities to be sister of Kamala and thus entitled to a share stated to be with reference to Rehmat a brother of Kamala who died issueless in Pakistan.
The petitioners challenges in the High Court through writ petition regarding Mst. Fatima's parentage and thus her right to inherit, having, failed they have now sought leave to appeal.
When called upon to satisfy us regarding any infirmity legal or otherwise on the real question of fact relating to the identity and parentage of Mst. Fatima, the learned counsel failed to urge any point worth consideration. He instead tried to raise technical points which, were duly attended to by the High Court. We do not, therefore, consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal, which is accordingly refused.
S. Q. Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer