Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
2000 C.L.R. 518

MUHAMMAD TARIQ vs MUHAMMAD BIBI and another

Citation2000 C.L.R. 518
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Civil Revision No. 1884 of 1986
Date1999-05-10
Judge(s)Maulvi Anwar-ul-Haq
ResultN/A

MAULVI ANWAR-UL-HAQ, J. - House No. 1648 in Ward No. 7, Baboo Mohallah, Sialkot Cantt. Was transferred to respondent No. 1 and her brother Muhammad Sharif in equal share vide T.O. Dated 20.8.1975' Muhammad Sharif died on 11.5.1983. Present suit was filed on 21.8.1984 by the respondents against the petitioner for possession of a room in die said house and also for cancellation of a will allegedly made in favour of .Petitioner by said Muhammad Sharif. Compensation for illegal use and occupation was also claimed. The learned Civil Judge framed issues, recorded the evidence of the parties and vide judgment and decree dated 21.4.1986 decreed the suit. An appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot on 21.7.1986. Mr. Muhammad Abdullah Chaudhary, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that although the will dated 9.6.1982 Ex.D-4 was excluded from the evidence yet no issue was framed regarding will dated 14.4.1983 Ex.P-1 in favour of respondent No. 2.

2. I have gone through the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that the learned Courts below have correctly read and appreciated the evidence. The will Ex.P-1 was proved by production of attesting witnesses. On the other hand the will Ex.D-4 was not proved in accordance with law. Even if Ex.D-4 is proved to have been executed by Muhammad Sharif then the same stood revoked by execution of Ex.P-1, which is later in time.

3. In any case nothing turns on the said argument of the learned counsel. Muhammad Sharif was survived by respondent No. 1 his sister. There is nothing on record to suggest that there was any residuary. Even if both the wills are kept out of consideration, the residue if any would revert to respondent No. 1 who was a plaintiff in the case.

4. The judgment and decree under appeal are, therefore, in accordance with law and are supported by evidence on record. I see no ground to interfere under Section 115, C.P.C. The civil revision is accordingly dismissed, without any order as to costs.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch