1989SCMR727 (PLP)
OUTAB DIN and 4 others — Petitioners Versus Mst. RAHIM BIBII — Respondent
| Citation | 1989SCMR727 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zillah and Javid Iqhal, JJ |
| Parties | OUTAB DIN and 4 others — Petitioners Versus Mst. RAHIM BIBII — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Gift |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR727 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Gift as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR727 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zillah and Javid Iqhal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR727 (PLP) (OUTAB DIN and 4 others — Petitioners Versus Mst. RAHIM BIBII — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahid Hussain Qadri, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Aslam Choudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 23rd November, 1988.
- Shahid Hussain Qadri, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Aslam Choudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 13th November, 1984 in R.S.A. No.250 of 1984).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--Gift of land by father in favour of his daughter- -Collaterals' suit dismissed as also their first and second appeals- Leave to appeal was sought on the ground that gift was void as no delivery of possession took place--Such objection had not been taken in plaint and was also not reflected in any of the issues framed--High Court dismissed second appeal mainly for the reason that question of non-delivery of possession could not be raised at the stage of second appeal--Land was in possession of tenants and name of donee was recorded as owner of said land in revenue record--High Court's order being unexceptionable, no interference was called for--Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IOBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave is directed against order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 13th November, 1984 whereby the Regular Second Appeal of the petitioners was dismissed. The background of this case is that Barkat Ali deceased made a gift of land in favour of his daughter namely Mst. Rahim Bibi respondent. The present petitioners are legal heirs of Hakam Ali who was brother of Barkat Ali. Hakam Ali tiled a suit for possession against the respondent for 1/2 of the suit land on the ground that he was entitled to inherit the said share from the estate left by his deceased brother Barkat Ali who was governed by custom and the gift made by him in favour of his daughter was illegal because .the possession of the property had never been delivered. The trial Court framed numerous issues. But no issue was framed regarding non‑delivery of possession as the said plea had not been taken in the pleadings. The suit was dismissed but on appeal the case was remanded with an additional issue framed by the Additional District Judge as to whether the gift deed was fictitious. The trial Court after recording the evidence again dismissed the suit by holding that the gift was not fictitious. The appeal of the petitioners was dismissed. Subsequently his R.S.A. was also dismissed. Hence the present petition. The only point urged before us by learned counsel is that the gift was void as no delivery of possession took place. We have considered this argument of learned counsel. This objection had not been taken in the plaint and it was also not reflected in any of the issues framed. The High Court dismissed the R.S.A. mainly for the reason that the question of non‑delivery of possession could not be raised at the stage of R.S.A. besides that the land in dispute was in possession of the tenants and the name of the respondent was recorded as owner of the said land in the Revenue record. Since this is the position the order passed by the High Court is unexceptionable and no interference is called for. This petition is accordingly dismissed. AA./Q‑21/S Petition dismissed.