1998 PLP 533 (SCMR)
BARKAT ALI through Legal Heirs‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL through Legal Heirs‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1998 PLP 533 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan, Muhammad Ilyas and Irshad Hasan Khan, JJ |
| Parties | BARKAT ALI through Legal Heirs‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL through Legal Heirs‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistani Lane] Reforms Regulation, 1959 (M.L.R. 64)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 533 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistani Lane] Reforms Regulation, 1959 (M.L.R. 64)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 533 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan, Muhammad Ilyas and Irshad Hasan Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 533 (SCMR) (BARKAT ALI through Legal Heirs‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL through Legal Heirs‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.J.I. Jafree, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Sardar Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- A. Karim Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 17th April, 1996.
- M.J.I. Jafree, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Sardar Khan, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- A. Karim Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(On review from the order dated 18‑5‑1994 passed by this Court in C.P. No. 910/L/1993). ‑‑‑‑Para. 25‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.188‑‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O. XXVI, R.1‑‑‑Review of judgment of Supreme Court‑‑ Respondent's claim that land in question was gifted to him by his grandfather was partly decreed by Trial Court‑‑‑Appellate Court, however, decreed respondent's suit in toto‑‑‑High Court affirmed judgment of Appellate Court‑‑ Supreme Court dismissed petition for leave to appeal on account of being barred by time‑‑‑Application for review of Supreme Court judgment accompanied by application for condonation of delay‑‑‑Review application was entertained to consider contentions that alleged gift was evidenced by mutation attested at a time when Martial Law Regulation No.64 placed certain restrictions on alienation of agricultural land; that report made to Patwari by donor through Roznamcha, pertained to gift of half of his total ownership which offended against Martial Law Regulation No.64‑‑‑Scope of jurisdiction of Civil Court whether it could question the transaction being in violation of Martial Law Regulation or not was also involved in litigation.
Judgment & Decree
IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.
The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 16-1-1993.
2. Brief facts of the case are that ownership of the property in dispute measuring 146 Kanals, 19 Marlas situated in Khata No.135, Mauza Gohar Muhammad Tehsil Kabirwala, now District Khanewal was subject-matter of challenge in counter Suit No.672 of 1972 and 178-A of 1974 respectively brought by father (Barkat Ali) and son (Muhammad Ismail) against each other and now between aunt and nephew challenging Revenue Report No.308, dated 6-6-1968 made by Din Muhammad to the Revenue Patwari that one-half of the suit property was gifted in his favour by his grandfather Din Muhammad and Mutation No.80 was sanctioned on 28-7-1968 pursuant to the said report and compromise, dated 17-9-1970 filed before A.C./Collector, Kabirwala. The trial Court decreed the suit of Barkat Ali to the extent of 46 Kanals and 19 Marlas and that of Muhammad Ismail to the extent of 100 Kanals. The Additional District Judge upset it making Muhammad Ismail the owner of the entire land on the basis of gift made by Din Muhammad, his grandfather holding that/same was lawfully gifted in his favour by his grandfather.
3. The learned Judge in Chambers dismissed the revision petition by maintaining the finding recorded by the lower Appellate Court vide Judgment, dated 16-1-1993 Review filed against it was also dismissed vide order, dated 2-5-1993. Against this decision a petition for special leave to appeal was filed which was dismissed being barred by 55 days vide order, dated 18-5-1994. The petitioners moved an application for review of the order accompanied by an application for condonation of delay which was entertained on the ground that the alleged gift was evidenced by Mutation No.80 attested at a time when Martial Law Regulation 64 placed certain restrictions on the alienation of agricultural land, that report made to the Patwari by the donor through Roznamcha pertained to the gift of half of his total ownership which clearly offended the Martial Law Regulation 64 and that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court whether they can question the transaction being in violation of Martial Law Regulation or not was also involved in the instant litigation.
4. Leave to appeal is granted to consider the above question and also whether the Courts below have correctly followed the principles governing appraisement of evidence in civil cases as laid down by this Court. A.A./B-295/S Leave granted.