1998 PLP 2347 (SCMR)
ALI AHMAD ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus Mst. GULSHAN and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 2347 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saleem Akhtar and Fazal Karim, JJ, |
| Parties | ALI AHMAD ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus Mst. GULSHAN and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 2347 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 2347 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saleem Akhtar and Fazal Karim, JJ,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 2347 (SCMR) (ALI AHMAD ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus Mst. GULSHAN and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. H. Lughmani, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 12th March, 1996.
- M. H. Lughmani, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
1996. (On appeal from the judgment dated 20‑6‑1995 of the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench passed in Writ Petition No. 142 of 1994). ‑‑‑‑S. 12‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Land in question was given to plaintiff in lieu of dower‑‑‑Trial Court decreed plaintiff's suit but found her entitled to money decree‑‑‑Appellate Court, however, modified such decree for recovery of land in question but having found that marriage had not been consummated, he gave decree for half of land in question‑‑‑Defendant's Constitutional petition against such decree remained unsuccessful‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Defendant's plea that document in question, being for transfer of land required compulsory registration, was of no effect‑‑‑Plaintiff's suit was for recovery of possession, therefore, in sum and substance same was for specific performance of agreement ‑‑‑Factum of land having been given in lieu of dower was admitted on behalf of defendant‑‑‑Justice of matter would, thus, lie in favour of plaintiff‑‑‑Courts below in decreeing plaintiff's suit having done justice, Supreme Court would not countenance technical plea to defeat ends of justice‑‑ Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
FAZAL KARIM, J.
The plaintiff Mst. Gulshan now respondent, brought this suit for the recovery of 10 Kanals.of land described in para. 4 of the plaint on account of dower. Her claim was founded upon two documents namely an agreement dated 15-9-1990 and the Nikahnama. In both those documents it was stated that the dower was fixed at Rs.1,00,000 and that in lieu thereof 10 Kanals of land had been given to the plaintiff. As to the identity of the land so given, there is to be found in the agreement dated 15-9-1990 a reference to Mutation No.8259, by which the petitioner Ali Ahmad had purchased 40 Kanals of land described therein, 1/4th whereof was given on account of dower to the plaintiff. The learned trial Judge held that what the plaintiff was entitled to was a money decree. The learned District Judge, however, found that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for the recovery of the land but as he found that the marriage had not been consummated, what he gave was a decree for the recovery of 5 Kanals of land only. The petitioner challenged that decree by means of a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution but was unsuccessful. He now seeks leave to appeal.
2. The only point tried to be made by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the document dated 15-9-1990 transferred the land to the plaintiff and, therefore, required registration. Assuming that the deed dated 15-9-1990 required compulsory registration, the plaintiff's suit was a suit for recovery of possession and was, therefore, both in form and in substance it was a suit for the 1A specific performance of the agreement contained in the document dated 15-9-1990 and the Nikahnama dated 16-9-199(
1. Secondly learned counsel for the petitioner was fair to concede that the petitioner had given or agreed to give the land in question to the plaintiff in lieu of dower by means of the deeds referred to above. This formal concession means that the justice of the matter lies in favour of the (plaintiff. In other words in decreeing the suit, the Courts below have done justice and we would not, therefore, countenance a technical plea to defeat the ends of justice.
3. Leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed. A.A./A-69/S Leave refused.