2007 PLP 2530 (YLR)
Mst. RASOOL BIBI — Applicant Versus GHULAM RASOOL and 2 others-Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 2530 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja, J |
| Parties | Mst. RASOOL BIBI — Applicant Versus GHULAM RASOOL and 2 others-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 2530 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 2530 (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: 2007 PLP 2530 (YLR) (Mst. RASOOL BIBI — Applicant Versus GHULAM RASOOL and 2 others-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Pervaiz Igbal Gondal for Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 42
Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.41
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss.114, 115 & O.XLVII, R. 1
Plaintiff's plea was that both defendants (one of them was plaintiff's brother) were denying his title to suit-land on basis of two mutations of gift alleged to he made in their favour by plaintiff separately
Both defendants did not contest suit, and produce evidence, but only transferee of part of suit-land from plaintiff's brother claiming to be bona fide purchaser contested suit
Dismissal of suit of trial Court maintained up to High Court
Record showed that mutation in favour of,first defendant was by way of sale and was not gift, while mutation in favour of second defendant (plaintiff's brother) was by way of gift
First defendant was in possession of his part of suit-land-When plaintiff appeared in witness-box and denied gift, then second defendant (plaintiff's brother) had to prove gift, but he did not opt to appear in witness-box and controvert plaintiff's testimony
High Court in exercise of review jurisdiction modified decree and decreed suit only against second defendant. Zahid Hussain Khan for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.--This review application seeks modification/ clarification of the judgment dated 14-11-2005 whereby I have dismissed C.R. No.5 of 2000 filed by the applicant.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that only Muhammad Boota (respondent No.3) had contested the suit on the basis of title conveyed to him by Ghulam Rasool (respondent No.1) who is the brother of the applicant. Ghulam Rasool had asserted his title to the land on the basis of the gift Mutation No.10619 made in his favour by the applicant. It is argued that Ghulam Rasool and Muhammad Khan (respondent No.2), who is not, in any manner, related to the applicant and also claims to be a donee of a part of the suit property vide gift Mutation No.10620, had been proceeded against ex parte before the learned Courts below. They had not produced evidence to controvert the claim of the applicant to their extent.
3. On the above basis, it is contended that even if the decrees of the learned Courts below were to be upheld to the extent of Muhammad Boota (respondent No.3) as a bona fide purchaser, the same l could not be said in respect of respondents Nos.l and 2 who had not contested the suit and had not produced evidence to controvert the testimony of the applicant.
4. On the above basis, it is contended that the judgment dated 14-11-2005 may be modified and the decrees of the learned Courts below to the extent of respondents Nos.1 and 2, namely Ghulam Rasool and Muhammad Khan be set aside.
5. The respondents have entered appearance through. counsel. He has submitted that even Mutation No.10619 in favour of Muhammad Khan (respondent No.2) was by way of sale. It was not a gift as alleged by learned counsel for the petitioner. This contention is well founded because the mutation has been brought on record as Exh.P.5 and confirms the assertion of learned counsel for the respondents. Furthermore, the petitioner acknowledged in her testimony that Muhammad Khan (respondent No.2) was in possession of the suit-land. She did not state as to when and how the said respondent took possession of the suit--land.
6. In view of the above, I find that the impugned decrees to the extent that the petitioner's suit has been dismissed against Muhammad Khan (respondent No.2) and Muhammad Boota (respondent No.3) do not require interference. However, so far as Ghulam Rasool (respondent No.l) is concerned, it is to be noted that he did not 1 appear in the witness-box to controvert the testimony of the petitioner. Furthermore, he is a brother of the petitioner and has asserted tilde on the basis of an alleged gift. It was for him to prove the gift after the petitioner had appeared in Court and denied the same. His failure to appear in Court and to adduce evidence is, therefore material.
7. In the foregoing circumstances the two Mutations Nos.10619 dated 24-11-1974 in favour of Muhammad Khan, (respondent and No.851 dated 30-12-1992 in favour of Muhammad Boota (respondent are upheld. Mutation No.10620 dated 24-11-1974 to the extent of 11 Kanals 13 Marlas which remains in the name of F Ghulam Rasool (respondent No.1) is set aside. As a consequence, the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff is decreed to the extent of 11 Kanals, 13 Marlas covered in Mutation No.10620. 8.???????? This review application is partially allowed in the above terms. S.A.K./R-4/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.