Shirimati MOTAL BAI vs AHMAD AND ANOTHER
This matter arose from a petition for special leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning a dispute over a residential property previously belonging to Hondumal, involving claims by his widow Shirimati Motal Bai and subsequent transfer of evacuee shares to the respondent Ahmad. The core legal question was whether the petition for special leave to appeal survived the death of the petitioner where her interest was limited to a life estate and her successors were evacuees. The Supreme Court held that the petition had become infructuous due to the death of the petitioner, as her life estate stood extinguished and no cause of action survived in favor of her successors-in-interest. The key principle laid down is that a petition for leave to appeal seeking to protect a purely personal life interest abates and becomes infructuous upon the death of the petitioner when such life estate terminates and the cause of action does not survive.
- Does a petition for special leave to appeal become infructuous upon the death of the petitioner holding a life estate in the disputed property?
- Does a cause of action regarding a life estate survive in favor of successors-in-interest after the death of the life tenant?
1. ' HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-The property in dispute originally belonged to Hondumal who died leaving behind his widow, Shirimati Motel Bai and two sons Premchand and Parsram. In 1933, Shirimati Motal Bai filed a Civil Suit in Hyderabad for a declaration that she had got a life interest in the house in addition to her 1/4th share. The remaining 3/4th share devolved upon the sons. This decree was granted in her favour on the 30th July 1935.
2. ' Subsequently, on the Partition of the country, both her sons migrated to India and, therefore, their 3/4th share in the house was treated as evacuee property and transferred to the respondent, Ahmed son of Nabi Baksh on the 22nd December 1970, subject to the condition that he would continue to allow Shirimati Motal Bai to occupy the house as a tenant to the extent of 3/4th portion during her lifetime in addition to her 1/4th share.
3. Against this order, both sides went up in appeal to the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The latter rejected the claim of the said respondent on the ground that he was a tenant of the house from before the Partition. He then went up in revision which succeeded. The order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner was set aside and that of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner restored.
4. Against this order, Shirimati Motel Bai went to the High Court in the writ jurisdiction but her petition was dismissed. She then came up to this Court for special leave to appeal. This petition was filed on the 4th September, 1974, but, thereafter, it is said, she expired on the 9th October 1974. By reason of her death, this petition is said to have become infructuous as her heirs are evacuees and her own life estate has become extinguished after her death. She herself has, therefore, no further interest left in this property nor can her cause of action be said to have survived in favour of her successors-in-interest, if any.
5. ' This position appears to be correct. The petition has, accordingly, become inttuctuous and is dismissed as such.
Cited by 1 case
- ABDUL AZIZ vs RAMCHAND 1982 CLC 214