1989 PLP (2) (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SALEEM — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM — Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP (2) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SALEEM — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Muhammadan Law-- |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP (2) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Muhammadan Law-- as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP (2) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP (2) (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SALEEM — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 7th August,
- Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 5-10-1982 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, in C.R. No. 193-D of 1980/BWP.).
Gift--Petition for leave to appeal--Respondent had challenged gift in dispute, which was claimed by petitioner to have been made by him in his favour, through a civil suit which was decreed--Appeal and revision of petitioner against said decree dismissed=-Question whether or not gift was in fact made by respondent stood decided and concluded by concurrent findings of all Courts below and revision petition of petitioner was rightly dismissed by High Court--Leave to appeal against order of High Court refused.
Judgment & Decree
Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 7th August, 1988. ORDER MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Petitioner, a defendant in a suit regarding an alleged gift made by his father (plaintiff/respondent herein), has sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court. The respondent had challenged the gift in dispute claimed to have been made by him in favour of the petitioner through a civil suit which was decreed. Petitioner's appeal and civil revision were dismissed. The question whether or not the gift was, in fact, made by the respondent stands now decided and concluded by concurrent findings of all the learned Courts below. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to re‑agitate the questions examined by the High Court regarding findings of fact. After hearing him, we are satisfied that the High Court has rightly dismissed the petitioner's civil revision. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused. M.Y.H./M‑571/S Petition dismissed.