1989 PLP 1532 (SCMR)
GHULAM RASOOL Petitioner Versus NAZIR and 2 others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1532 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM RASOOL Petitioner Versus NAZIR and 2 others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Gift‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1532 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Gift‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1532 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1532 (SCMR) (GHULAM RASOOL Petitioner Versus NAZIR and 2 others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate instructed by S.Abul Asim Jafrr. Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 21st June, 1983 of Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No.1092‑D of 1983). ‑‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑All the Courts below had rendered concurrent findings against petitioner, regarding exrstence/validity of the gift‑ Leave to appeal refused. Date of bearing: 19th February, 1989.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a defendant, against the dismissal by the High Court, of his Civil Revision which had arisen out of a suit and decree for declaration. During a mutation proceedings it was found that the property in dispute purported to have been gifted away by its last male holder namely Sardar ‑beneficiaries, as stated by the learned counsel, were the petitioner and respondent No
3. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 are beneficiaries if the property would have been disposed of in accordance with Muslim Law of Inheritance,. Accordingly respondents Nos.1 & 2 feeling aggrieved by the assertion of the petitioner and respondent No3 in respect of the said gift in their favour, filed a suit challenging the gift as also the mutation proceedings as invalid and hit by fraud and misrepresentation. The suit stands decreed throughout up to the High Court in favour of the plaintiffs. The petitioner has now sought leave, to appeal. Learned counsel frankly stated that on the question of disputed facts regarding existence/validity of the gift all the Courts below have rendered concurrent findings against the petitioner. He however contended that the entry A in the `Rozenamcha Waqiati' of the Patwari which supported the petitioner's assertion that Sardar Khan had made the disputed gift three days before his death, has not been given due legal weight and consideration. This argument of the learned counsel also is of no help to the petitioner because on facts the authenticity of the entry in the `Rozenamcha Waqiati' has not been established and the learned Courts below on this point have also not believed the petitioner's version. Keeping in view all these circumstances no justification has been made out for interference. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. M.A.K./G‑190/S Leave refused..