| Case ID |
441ae3b8-8aa4-4a7d-b873-c332d7199878 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
185 of 1986 |
| Decision Date |
Feb 08, 2002 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Sindh High Court allowed the revision application, setting aside the findings of both lower Courts that had erroneously concluded that Mst. Kheer Bai was not the wife of Datto and that plaintiff No.1, Loung, was not his son. Moreover, the court found that plaintiff No.3, Ramzan, was unjustly deprived of his inheritance rights based on incorrect findings regarding his mother's death occurring during Datto's lifetime. The court held that the lower Courts had committed material irregularities and misread the evidence presented in the case, thereby ignoring established legal principles. Consequently, the High Court declared all three plaintiffs as rightful legal heirs of Datto and recognized their joint possession of the disputed agricultural land. The suit was deemed within the limitation period and was decreed as prayed, with each party bearing their own costs. This decision emphasizes the importance of adhering to procedural requirements under the Civil Procedure Code and respecting the legal presumption of marriage under Islamic Law. |
| Summary |
In the landmark decision rendered by the Sindh High Court on February 8, 2002, in Revision Application No. 185 of 1986, the court meticulously examined a contentious property dispute involving the plaintiffs Loung and others against Allah Ditto and others. Central to the case was the validity of the matrimonial relationship between Mst. Kheer Bai and the deceased Datto Khaskheli, which directly influenced the legal heirs' rights over agricultural land in Taluka Matli, District Badin. The plaintiffs contended that Mst. Kheer Bai was the lawful wife of Datto, thereby making Loung and his family rightful heirs entitled to inheritance. Conversely, the respondents disputed this claim, asserting that Mst. Kheer Bai was not legally wedded to Datto, and thus, the plaintiffs had no claim to the property. The trial Court had previously dismissed the suit based on these findings, declaring the plaintiffs not as legal heirs and deeming the suit time-barred. However, upon revision, the High Court identified significant procedural lapses and misinterpretations of evidence by the lower Courts. Specifically, the lower Courts had unfairly placed the burden of proof on the plaintiffs without considering the customary practices under Islamic Law, such as the presumption of a legitimate marriage arising from prolonged cohabitation. The High Court also highlighted instances where the respondents failed to provide concrete evidence to support their claims, thereby violating the norms set forth in the Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), particularly Order VIII, rule 2, which mandates defendants to present all material defenses comprehensively. Furthermore, the court underscored the irrelevance of adverse entries in the Revenue Record as determinants of property ownership, citing precedents like Ghulam Ali v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi and Mst. Najabat v. Mst. Sawan Bibi, which affirmed that Revenue Records are not conclusive for adjudicating ownership in civil suits. The decision reinforced the legal principle that, in the absence of explicit denial and sufficient evidence, a presumption of marriage under Islamic Law stands strong, safeguarding the inheritance rights of the legitimate heirs. By overturning the lower Courts' verdict, the Sindh High Court not only reinstated the plaintiffs' claims but also set a significant precedent ensuring that judicial interpretations align with both statutory mandates and prevailing personal laws. This verdict is a testament to the judiciary's role in upholding fairness and legal integrity, especially in cases involving intricate familial and property relations. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Allah Bachayo Soomro,
LOUNG,
ALLAH DITTO,
Jhamat Jethanand
|
| Judges |
Muhammad Mujeebullah Siddiqui
|
| Lawyers |
Jhamat Jethanand,
Allah Bachayo Soomro
|
| Petitioners |
LOUNG and others
|
| Respondents |
ALLAH DITTO and others
|
| Citations |
2002 SLD 1956,
2002 CLC 1307
|
| Other Citations |
1991 CLC 324,
PLD 1969 Pesh. 241,
AIR 1963 Pat. 400,
Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi PLD 1990 SC 1,
Mst. Najabat and others v. Mst. Sawan Bibi and others PLD 1982 SC 187,
Haji and others v. Khuda Yar PLD 1987 SC 453,
Mst. Noorun Nisa v. Abdul Salam and others PLD 1982 Pesh. 42,
Abdul Majeed Khan v. Anwari Begum PLD 1989 SC 362,
Nazir Abbas v. Manzoor Haider Shah PLD 1989 SC 568,
Muhammad Atayat Khan v. Rahmat Khatoon 2001 MLD 1083,
Muhammad Subhan v. Muhammad Qadam Khan 2001 MLD 1716,
Sardar Muhammad Mushtaq v. Sardar Muhammad Pervez Khan 2001 MLD 1725,
Abdul Qayyum v. Mushk-e-Alam 2001 SCMR 798,
PLD 1980 Pesh. 40,
PLD 1978 Lah. 994,
PLD 1980 BJ 29,
PLD 1989 Lah. 484,
PLD 1964 Kar. 549,
PLD 1974 SC 22,
1980 SCMR 760
|
| Laws Involved |
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),
Islamic Law
|
| Sections |
Order VIII, rule 2,
S. 115,
Marriage validity,
Mulla's Mohammadan Law, para. 268
|