Mst. LATIFA KHANUM AND Others vs Mian ABDUL WAHID AND Other
This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court which accepted the respondents' writ petition and declared that the Deed of Association accepted by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner correctly incorporated the intention of the parties, while setting aside the Settlement Commissioner's order. The core legal question concerns whether the legal heirs (widow and children) of a deceased property holder could challenge a Deed of Association after attaining majority, where the deceased had admitted before the settlement authorities that he held the property on behalf of his brothers and sisters. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners lacked locus standi to challenge the arrangement in view of the clear admission made by their predecessor-in-interest during the settlement proceedings. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that successors-in-interest cannot resile from or challenge binding admissions and valid settlements entered into by their predecessor.
- Whether the legal heirs of a deceased person have the locus standi to challenge a Deed of Association after attaining majority when the deceased had admitted before settlement authorities that he held the property on behalf of his siblings?
- Does a successor-in-interest inherit the limitations and binding admissions made by their predecessor in settlement proceedings?
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 21-2-1972 passed in Writ Petition No. 231-R of 1977 accepting the writ petition filed by the respondents and declaring the Deed of Associat--ion accepted by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 5-9-1969 as having correctly incorporated the intention of the parties and directing that it should be given effect to and setting aside the order of the Settlement commissioner, dated 6-1-1977, whereby the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner accepting the Deed of Association, dated 5-9-1960 was interfered with by him.
2. Under the Deed of Association accepted by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner the respondents, who are the brothers and sisters of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, were also allowed a share in the 60 percent share of the property for which the P. T. O. Was issued in the dame of Abdul Hamid, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners.
3. The case of the petitioners before us is that they were minors when, he Deed of Association was accepted and could not be deprived of any portion out of the share given to Abdul Hamid in the P.
4. T. O. They had, accordingly, on attaining majority, challenged the arrangement incorporated in the Deed of Association.
5. We have examined the entire record and are of the opinion that in view of the admission of Abdul Hamid made in the course of the proceedings before the Settlement authorities that he was holding the property on behalf of the brothers anal sisters, his widow and children had no locus standi, on attaining majority, to challenge the decision of the Settlement authorities allowing some share of the property to his brothers and sisters.
6. The petition has no force which is dismissed.