Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 641 of 1978, decided on 24th February, 1985.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 16‑10‑1978 in Regular First Appeal No. 11 of 1960).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 9‑‑Declaratory suit‑‑Limited estate‑‑Compromise decree‑‑ Declaratory suit by collaterals decreed holding that earlier compromise decree would not affect rights of plaintiffs after death of widow to inherit property in dispute‑‑Order impugned‑‑Compromise not to survive termination of limited estate‑‑No question of law requiring further examination‑‑Leave to appeal refused.

Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Ch. Muhammad Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M.A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 24th February, 1985.

‑One Fazal Din died on 26‑1‑1946. The whole of his property was mutated in the name of Mst. Hussain Bibi. Bulanda brother of Fazal Din instituted a suit and effected a compromise with Mst. Hussain Bibi leaving out 82 Kanals 6 Marlas in her exclusive ownership and getting the remainder 203 Kanals as his own exclusive ownership under the compromise. In this background, the plaintiffs who were the collaterals of Fazal Din and the sons of his two daughters Mst. Akki and Mst. Amir Bibi instituted a civil suit avoiding the compromise. The suit was contested by the heirs of Bulanda the petitioners before us but it was decreed and the plaintiff‑respondents were granted a decree that the earlier compromise decree between Mst. Hussain Bibi and Bulanda would not affect the rights of the plaintiffs after the death of Mst. Hussain Bibi to inherit the property in dispute.

A regular first appeal was filed in the High Court which upheld the finding. The petitioners, the heirs of Bulanda seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court. Their contention is that Bulanda was the only surviving heir entitled to inherit Fazal Din and his two sisters Mst. Akki and Mst. Amir Bibi and other brother of pre‑deceased Fazal Din. The learned counsel also defended the compromise entered into between Bulanda and Mst. Hussain Bibi.

So far as the finding of fact as to who pre‑deceased Fazal Din is concerned we find that a concurrent finding of fact has been recorded as also the right of the plaintiffs to file such a declaratory suit. As regards the compromise and its effect on their rights it is conceded by the petitioners that Mst. Hussain Bibi could have only limited estate in the property left by Fazal Din and after termination of such limited estate the entitlement of others could arise. The compromise entered into between Bulanda and Mst. Hussain Bibi Could not outlast the life or limited interest of Mst. Hussain Bibi. The declaration granted by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court has only the effect of declaring that the compromise will not survive the termination of limited estate of Mst. Hussain Bibi. We are told that during the pendency of the suit, Mst. Hussain Bibi not only alienated the property but also has died and the limited estate has terminated. There is no such question of law which may require further examination in this Court and leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.

We find that there is also an application for proceeding in contempt against some of the petitioners. In view of disposal of the main petition we do not consider it necessary to take any further proceedings in that application and thus it is also dismissed.

M.I. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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