2006 PLP 2986 (YLR)
REHMAT ALI — Petitioner Versus KHUSHI MUHAMMAD — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 2986 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja, J |
| Parties | REHMAT ALI — Petitioner Versus KHUSHI MUHAMMAD — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 2986 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 2986 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 2986 (YLR) (REHMAT ALI — Petitioner Versus KHUSHI MUHAMMAD — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- ----S. 42---Suit for declaration--- Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by respondent, but decree of Trial Court was reversed by Appellate Court below--Impugned judgment of Appellate Court was well reasoned and was un-exceptionable being consistent with the record---Counsel for petitioner was unable to advert to any jurisdictional error or other legal infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree, which could justify interference in revisional jurisdiction.
- Ghulam Hussain Malik for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Akram Javed for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
Rehmat Ali, petitioner-defendant is the son of Khushi Muhammad respondent-plaintiff. The petitioner impugns the appellate judgment and decree dated 5-5-2003 A whereby the decree of the learned trial Court was reversed and as a consequence, a declaratory suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was decreed. The facts of the case have been elaborately set out in the appellate judgment and, therefore, need not be reproduced in extenso.
2. The case of the petitioner was that the respondent had gifted the suit property to him vide Mutation No.1353 (Exh.D.1) sanctioned on 18-7-1995. The Pattidar Muhammad Ishaq who appeared as D.W.1 and the Lumberdar Dilawar Khan, who appeared as D.W.2, deposed that the mutation was for sale and not in respect of a gift. Furthermore, the respondent-plaintiff deposed that he had only affixed his thumb impressions because he was desirous of obtaining a loan. The gift was specifically denied by him.
3. In addition to the above the learned appellate Court noted that although the gift was allegedly made in 1995, the respondent remained in possession of the suit-land. The petitioner did not produce the Khasra Girdawari for the period prior to 2001 to prove that he had taken possession in 1995.
4. The impugned judgment is well reasoned and is unexceptionable being consistent with the record. Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to advert to any such jurisdictional error or other legal infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree, which would justify interference therein while exercising revisional jurisdiction. In these circumstances, I find no merit in this petition which is, therefore, dismissed. H.B.T./R-41/L???????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision petition dismissed.