1994 PLP 1955 (MLD)
WALAYAT — Petitioner Versus Mst. KANEEZ FATIMA — Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1955 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | WALAYAT — Petitioner Versus Mst. KANEEZ FATIMA — Respondent |
| Primary Law | In the present case three attacks were made on the gift |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1955 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: In the present case three attacks were made on the gift as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1955 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1955 (MLD) (WALAYAT — Petitioner Versus Mst. KANEEZ FATIMA — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Mashkoor Ahmad for Petitioner.
- Abdul Aziz Qureshi for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Transaction by Pardahnashin ladies and persons who were ignorant, weak and infirm
Law had woven a special ring of protection around them
Where father claimed ownership of land in question, on basis of gift from her daughter, he failed to establish satisfactorily that his daughter had gifted her land to him voluntarily and executed the gift deed for it
In presence of such daughter's own sons and daughters, there was no sound reason for her to donate her entire estate to her father
Transaction of gift in question, was, therefore, improbable and unnatural
Onus to prove voluntary execution of deed of gift lay upon father who was its beneficiary which he failed to establish
Transaction of alleged gift was, thus, a void instrument which was not binding on plaintiff lady.
[Gift].
Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.91
Alleged transaction of gift by a Pardahnashin lady
Suit for setting aside such transaction
Limitation--Voluntary execution of gift deed by plaintiff (Pardahnashin lady) and its registration at her instance was not established
Such transaction being void instrument, provision of Art.91, Limitation Act, 1908 would not be applicable thereto
If in respect of a void instrument, no suit for cancellation was brought within three years in terms of Art.91, Limitation Act, 1908, such instrument would not acquire any validity and would remain ineffective as before
Sole criterion for applicability of Art.91, Limitation Act, 1908, was whether deed in question had affected rights till some person entitled to have it set aside had done so
Where the deed as a matter of fact never affected rights, need for its being set aside would never arise
Void instrument procured in result of fraud, would not attract provision of Art. 91, Limitation Act, 1908.
Limitation Act, 1908, deprives a party of valuable right and unless provisions thereof, was clear and beyond doubt, a benevolent construction, a construction favourable to the party whose valuable right was being taken away, must always be given.
Judgment & Decree
Nur Muhammad v. Mst. Karim Bibi PLD 1959 (W.P.) Lah. 932 and Mst. Hawa v. Muhammad Yousuf and others PLD 1969 Kar. 324 rel. (b) Pardahnashin lady--‑
Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.91
Alleged transaction of gift by a Pardahnashin lady
Suit for setting aside such transaction
Limitation--Voluntary execution of gift deed by plaintiff (Pardahnashin lady) and its registration at her instance was not established
Such transaction being void instrument, provision of Art.91, Limitation Act, 1908 would not be applicable thereto
If in respect of a void instrument, no suit for cancellation was brought within three years in terms of Art.91, Limitation Act, 1908, such instrument would not acquire any validity and would remain ineffective as before
Sole criterion for applicability of Art.91, Limitation Act, 1908, was whether deed in question had affected rights till some person entitled to have it set aside had done so
Where the deed as a matter of fact never affected rights, need for its being set aside would never arise
Void instrument procured in result of fraud, would not attract provision of Art. 91, Limitation Act, 1908. Ramchandra Jivaji Kanago and another v. Laxman Shrinivas Naik and another AIR 1945 PC 54; Jiwan v. Mst. Sahbi PLD 1954 Lah. 253; Malik Ata Ullah and another v. Malik Muhammad Akram Khan and others PLD 1956 (W.P.) Lah. 264; Shamshad All Shah and others v. Syed Hassan Shah and others PLD 1960 (W.P.) Lah. 300; Shamshad Ali Shah and others v. Syed Hassan Shah and others PLD 1964 SC 143 and Mst. Hamida Begum v. Mst. Murad Begum and others PLD 1975 SC 624 ref. (c) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--‑
Limitation Act, 1908, deprives a party of valuable right and unless provisions thereof, was clear and beyond doubt, a benevolent construction, a construction favourable to the party whose valuable right was being taken away, must always be given.
[Interpretation of statutes]. P.N. Films Ltd. and another v. Overseas Films Corporation Ltd. AIR 1958 Bom. 10 rel. Sardar Mashkoor Ahmad for Petitioner. Abdul Aziz Qureshi for Respondent.