1987 PLP 1083 (CLC)
MAHMOODUL HASSAN and others‑‑Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD UMAR and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1083 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Abaid Ullah Aan, JJ |
| Parties | MAHMOODUL HASSAN and others‑‑Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD UMAR and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V d 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1083 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V d 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1083 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Abaid Ullah Aan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1083 (CLC) (MAHMOODUL HASSAN and others‑‑Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD UMAR and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ihsan‑ul‑Haq Chaudhary for Appellants.
- Kh. Muhammad Tufail for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 21st May, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑O. XX, R. 1‑‑Appellants,' in their suit as to declaration that they were owners of property in dispute under an oral gift, sought to bring into evidence a document purporting to be a will but Trial Court refused to take said document into evidence on ground that it required registration and dismissed suit without taking any further evidence‑ Held, Trial Court before recording its final decision should have allowed parties to conclude their evidence‑‑Judgment and decree of trial court set aside and case remanded for trial in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The appellants in this regular first appeal filed a civil suit for a declaration to the effect that they were owners of the property in dispute under an oral gift. The suit was resisted by the respondents and the learned trial Court struck as many as five issues on the pleadings of the parties. While the appellants were in the course of producing their evidence a document purporting to be a will was sought to be brought into evidence. The learned Civil Judge refused to take the said document into evidence on the ground that it required registration. He further went on to dismiss the suit without taking any further evidence. From the decision of the learned Civil Judge the appellants have come in appeal to this Court.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents frankly conceded that he cannot support the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court. We are also satisfied that before recording his final decision the learned Civil Judge should have allowed the parties to conclude their evidence. It is to be noticed that the gift set up by the appellants was an oral one.
3. In the circumstances we set aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court and remand the case for trial in accordance I with law. The amount of the court‑fee should be refunded to the appellants. The parties shall bear their own costs. The parties shall appear in the trial Court on 1‑6‑1983. M. Y.H/M‑9/L Case remanded,