1985 PLP 1503(1) (SCMR)
KHUDA DAD and others — Petitioners Versus FAZAL Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1503(1) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ |
| Parties | KHUDA DAD and others — Petitioners Versus FAZAL Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1503(1) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1503(1) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1503(1) (SCMR) (KHUDA DAD and others — Petitioners Versus FAZAL Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Wahla, Advocate Supreme Court with A. Razzaq for Petitioners.
- Mahmood A. Quraishi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 28th May 1984.
- Mahmood A. Quraishi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 1-10-1976 of the Lahore High Court in R.S.A. No. 288 of 1960).
Art. 185(3)--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908). S. 100--Gift--Second appeal--High Court reversing concurrent finding of fact that making of gift was not proved--Leave granted to consider whether High Court had exceeded powers conferred under S. 100, C.P.C.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑The learned Judge in the High Court has reversed, in second appeal, the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below that the alleged donee was not able to establish that possession had been delivered to him in pursuance of the alleged gift in his favour and, therefore, the making of the gift was not proved. After hearing Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Wahla, we consider that his contention that the learned Judge in the High Court could not have reversed such a finding of fact while hearing a second appeal and that he exceeded the powers conferred on him under section 100, C.P.C. has considerable force. Leave is, accordingly, granted. Security in the sum of Rs.1,
000. M.I. Leave granted.