HABIBAN and others vs MUHAMMAD UMAR and another
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that allowed a civil revision in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The original suit concerned an agreement executed by the deceased owner, Muhammad Idrees. While the trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit, the High Court allowed the revision, distributing the property among the legal heirs according to their Shari shares under the Muslim Personal Law. The petitioners, who were legal heirs, contended that some petitioners were minors and their admission of the claim was invalid. The Supreme Court examined whether the admission made by the minors' father, who acted on their behalf without adverse interest, was binding. The Court held that the High Court's decision achieved substantial justice by applying the correct inheritance shares. Consequently, the Supreme Court declined to grant leave to appeal, finding no legal error in the High Court's exercise of revisional jurisdiction, as the impugned judgment correctly applied the principles of Muslim Personal Law to the distribution of the estate.
- Can a father make a binding admission on behalf of his minor children in a civil suit regarding the distribution of property?
- Does the High Court have the authority to distribute property according to Shari shares in a civil revision arising from a specific performance suit?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when the impugned judgment has already achieved substantial justice?
- Article 185(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962
ORDER
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 6th July, 1999 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby civil revision filed by respondents has been allowed.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case respondents filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 20th November, 1984 allegedly executed by the Muhammad Idrees who is admittedly owner ofthe suit-land, for the sale of suit-land for the consideration of Rs,24,000.
According to the plaint a sum of Rs,20,000 was paid on 20th November, 1984 when the agreement to sell Exh. P.1 was executed. Petitioner No,1 contested the suit, while petitioners Nos.2 to 11 filed a consenting written statement praying therein that the suit of the respondents be decreed as against the said petitioners. The learned trial Court framed issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions. Learned trial Judge, after hearing both the sides and having gone through the evidence available on record dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 21st June, 1989. Appeal filed by the respondents against the judgment of the trial Court was heard by learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, who vide judgment dated 15th January, 1991 dismissed the same. Feeling aggrieved from the judgments of the trial and Appellate Courts, respondents approached the learned High Court by filing civil revision, which has been allowed by means of impugned judgment. As such instant petition has been filed.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for petitioners and have also gone through the impugned judgment carefully. We are of the opinion that vide impugned judgment learned High Court had distributed the property amongst the legal heirs of Muhammad Idrees according to their 'Shari' shares, as admissible under the Muslim Personal Law, 1962. It is also important to note that defendants/petitioners had admitted the claim of respondents in their statement.
4. Learned counsel stated that some of the petitioners were minor, I B. Therefore, on their behalf no admission was made.
5. Suffice it to say that as far as such admission is concerned, that was made on their behalf by their real father Bashir, who was not in their adverse interest in any manner.
Since in instant case substantial justice has been done by the learned High Court, therefore, we are of the opinion that no exception can be taken to the impugned judgment, in exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Article 185(3) of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
' Thus for the foregoing reasons, petition is dismissed and leave declined.
Leave declined.