SCMR 2006

2006 PLP 1142 (SCMR)

KHADIM HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus Mst. MANSAB MAI and others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Civil Petition No.1572-L of 2002, decided on 5th May, 2004.
Honorable Judges
Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Falak Sher, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2006 PLP 1142 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Falak Sher, JJ
Parties KHADIM HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus Mst. MANSAB MAI and others — Respondents
Primary Law Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1142 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1142 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Falak Sher, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1142 (SCMR) (KHADIM HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus Mst. MANSAB MAI and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

Representation

  • ----S. 42---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Declaration of title---Mutation of gift---Proof---Concurrent findings of facts by the Courts below---Plaintiff assailed gift mutation on the ground of fraud and asserted that the mutation was to deprive the plaintiff of her legal right in the property of her father---Defendant claimed to be the owner of suit property on the basis of gift made by the owner in his life time---Disputed gift was made to the defendant about three years prior to the death of donor but it was found by all the Courts that he could neither prove his possession of the land under the gift nor he could establish the factum of gift having been made in his favour---Besides examining the oral as well as documentary evidence by the defendant, it had also been noticed by the Courts that the alleged thumb-impression of the donor on the statement made by him which appeared on the mutation did not appear under the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 18-12-1991 when the alleged donor had made the statement in question but appeared under the order dated 31-12-1991 when the alleged donor was not in this world any more---Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and the judgment was maintained by Appellate Court---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction refused to interfere in the concurrent judgments passed by two Courts below---Validity---Supreme Court declined to take any exception to the consistent findings of the three Courts--Leave to appeal was refused. Khan Dil Muhammad Khan Alizai, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Talib Hussain Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 5th May, 2004.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment dated 7-3-2002 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench passed in Civil Revision No.190/D/2002).

Judgment & Decree

KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.

Mst. Mansab Mai respondent filed a suit in the Court of a learned Civil Judge at Ali Pur in March, 1992 seeking a declaration that she was a daughter and thus an heir of Hussain Bakhsh and that Mutation No.1151 sanctioned on 31-12-1991 on the strength of a gift allegedly made by her father Hussain Bakhsh in favour of Khadim Hussain defendant-petitioner was illegal, fraudulent and consequently ineffective against her rights. The said suit was decreed by the learned trial Judge through a judgment, dated 27-11-2001. An appeal filed against the said judgment by Khadim Hussain petitioner was dismissed affirming the findings and conclusions reached by the learned trial Judge. Both these judgments were then ` questioned by Khadim Hussain petitioner before the Multan Bench of Lahore High Court through Civil Revision No.190/D of 2002 which petition was dismissed in limine through order, dated 7-3-2002. (2). Hence this petition. (3). In affirming the concurrent findings of the two subordinate Courts, the learned High Court had found that the petitioner-defendant being the beneficiary of an oral gift allegedly made in his favour carried a heavy burden to prove a valid gift allegedly made by the donor. The mutation in question had been admittedly sanctioned after the death of the alleged donor. The case of the defendant-petitioner, however, was that the said gift had, in fact, been made to him about three years prior to the death of donor but it was found by all the learned Courts that he could neither prove his possession of the land in question under the said gift nor he could establish the factum of gift having been made in his favour. Besides examining the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the petitioner defendant, it had also been noticed by the learned Courts that the alleged thumb-impressions of the donor on the statement made by him which appeared on the mutation did not appear under the order of the Assistant Commissioner, dated 18-12-1991 when the alleged donor had made the statement in question but appeared under the orders, dated 31-12-1991 when the alleged donor was not in this world any more. (4). g heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, we find that no exception could be taken to the consistent findings of the three learned Courts. This petition is, therefore, without merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. Leave refused. M.H./K-15/SC Petition dismissed.