1970 PLP 275 (SCMR)
GHULAM NABI alias ALLAHDINO AND OTHERS -Petitioners Versus Mst. JIANDI AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1970 PLP 275 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM NABI alias ALLAHDINO AND OTHERS -Petitioners Versus Mst. JIANDI AND OTHERS-Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 PLP 275 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 PLP 275 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1970 PLP 275 (SCMR) (GHULAM NABI alias ALLAHDINO AND OTHERS -Petitioners Versus Mst. JIANDI AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Khalid M. Ishaque, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. M. Hanif, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 8th January 1970.
- Khalid M. Ishaque, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. M. Hanif, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 29th October 1968, in L. P. A. No. 78 of 1966). Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58 (3)-Special Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court-Courts below holding alleged gift not proved and giving concurrent findings of fact on question-Even otherwise no substantial question of law arising for Court's consider ation-Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑This petition for special leave to appeal is concluded by concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below that there was no proof of the gift of one‑half share on 228 acres of land allegedly made by the respondents in favour of the opponent No.
1. The donors were pardanashin ladies. They were married and had their own children. It could not therefore be contemp lated that they would deprive themselves of valuable property rights without consideration. The order attesting the mutation in the revenue record purported to have been based on the statements of the donors recorded by a Hindu Magistrate. The Magistrate was said to have migrated to India and the statements were not forthcoming. No attempt was made to summon the record of the statements or to prove their loss. The Courts below therefore, rightly concluded that no such statements were ever made by the donors. The transfer if made would also have been hit by Act III of 1899 which enjoined that prior sanction of the Collector was necessary. It was the case of the appellant that sanction was obtained by hint after the gift had been made. As, seen no substantial question of law arises for consideration of the Court. The petition for leave to appeal dismissed. Leave refused,