MAQBOOL AHMED vs GUARDIAN JUDGE, LAHORE and 15 others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 12-11-1997 in Writ Petition No. 18798 of 1997, which ordered the petitioner to distribute the sum and shares of the deceased father among all legal heirs in accordance with law. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was exclusively entitled to receive bonuses on shares when the principal investment belonged to the deceased father and was to be shared among all heirs. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's direction to equally distribute the shares and amounts among all legal heirs was proper and suffered from no legal infirmity, noting that constitutional jurisdiction is exercised to foster justice and prevent retention of unjust gains. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.
- Whether constitutional jurisdiction can be exercised to direct equal distribution of a deceased person's assets among all legal heirs?
- Is a petitioner entitled to exclusively retain bonus shares derived from an investment made by the deceased father?
- Whether the High Court's direction to distribute shares among heirs in accordance with law suffers from any legal infirmity?
ORDER
' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---Leave is sought against the judgment, dated 12-11-1997 in Writ Petition No,18798 of 1997 whereby the Lahore High Court, Lahore directed the petitioner to make the distribution in accord with the shares of the heirs of the deceased in accordance with law. The operative part of the order reads thus:-- "3. I am afraid, without going into technicalities of law, one thing which is evident on the face of record is that the entire sum of Rs,6,00,000 (Rupees six lacs) belonged to the deceased father of the parties and was to be shared equally among them. There is no reason or basis on which the petitioner can claim that though the principal amount invested by his father viz. Rs,50,000 is to be shared equally among all the legal heirs, but he alone is entitled to receive the bonus on the shares. There is long line of decisions of superior Courts holding that Constitutional jurisdiction has to be exercised for fostering the cause of justice and not to allow retention of litigation gains."
2. We heard Syed Nadeem Saqlain, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shahzad Shoukat and Mr. Zafar Iqbal, learned counsel for the respondents and have also perused the available material with their help. The resolution of the alleged dispute has not been shown to be suffering from any infirmity in law. The direction to equally distribute the shares among all the legal heirs cannot be held to be advancing the cause of justice. Not finding any force in this petition the same is dismissed and leave is refused.