1991 PLP 1899 (SCMR)
Mst. ZAIDAT — Petitioner Versus SHAHADAT and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1899 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. ZAIDAT — Petitioner Versus SHAHADAT and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1899 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1899 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1899 (SCMR) (Mst. ZAIDAT — Petitioner Versus SHAHADAT and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Rafique Ahmad Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th September, 1989.
- Ch. Rafique Ahmad Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
From the judgment dated 1-2-86 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Revision No.206-D of 1986.
Art. 185(3)
Question whether vendor of land in dispute was mentally fit to sell his land to vendees was question of fact
Concurrent findings of subordinate Courts, below on such question of fact was not suffering from any infirmity-- Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑By a registered sale‑deed dated 18‑8‑69 one Fatoo sold about 107 Kanals of land to the respondents. On 17‑12‑69‑ the petitioner who was the daughter of Fatoo filed a suit for possession of the land on the grounds, mainly, that at the time of the sale Fatoo did not possess a disposing mind on account of advanced age, paralysis and senility. The suit was resisted by the respondents. After a proper trial, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit holding that Fatoo was in possession of all his senses at the relevant time and was in a position to enter into the transaction in question. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge affirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The petitioner filed a revision petition in the High Court which failed. She now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The question whether Fatoo was mentally fit to sell his land to the respondents was one of fact. The concurrent findings of the subordinate Courts are against the petitioner. We are not persuaded that these findings suffer from any infirmity. Leave is refused. H.B.T./Z‑83/S Leave refused.