1988 PLP 485 (SCMR)
Mst.NASEEBAN — Petitioner Versus MAQBOOL AHMAD — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 485 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Mst.NASEEBAN — Petitioner Versus MAQBOOL AHMAD — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 485 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 485 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 485 (SCMR) (Mst.NASEEBAN — Petitioner Versus MAQBOOL AHMAD — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Abdus Saleem, Advocate Supreme Court and S.Abul Aasim Jafari, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 11th January, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 16-9-1987 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, in R.S.A.No.466 of 1973).
S.123--Gift of immovable property--Non-delivery of possession- Effect of-- Paternal- grandfather making gift of immovable property to his minor grand-son (respondent) by registered deed--Recital in the deed made that donor had delivered possession to donee--Interest of minor donee's father being adverse to him--Donee living with donor who was also bearing his maintenance expenses--High Court holding that to complete gift it was not necessary for grandfather to formally deliver possession of property to donee, for after execution of deed grandfather was to be treated as holding property on behalf of his minor grandson--View upheld by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The only question raised in this petition for special leave to appeal is whether the gift made by Abdullah, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, in favour of the respondent remained inchoate on account of non-delivery of possession. It may be mentioned that Abdullah was the real paternal-grandfather of the respondent. At the time of making the gift the respondent was a minor. The gift was made by a registered deed in which a clear recital was made to the effect that the donor had delivered the possession to the donee. So far as the gift was concerned, the interest of the father of the respondent was adverse to him. The respondent was living with the donor who was also bearing his maintenance expenses. Taking into consideration all these facts, the High Court held that to complete the gift it was not necessary for the grandfather to formally deliver the possession of the property to the donee, for, after the execution of the deed the grandfather was to be treated as holding the property on behalf of his minor grandson. In the peculiar circumstances of this case we are unable to disagree with the High Court. This petition is accordingly dismissed. M.I./N-49/S Petition dismissed.