1989 PLP 1201(2) (SCMR)
Mst. HAMIDA BIBI‑‑Petitioner Versus FATEH MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1201(2) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. HAMIDA BIBI‑‑Petitioner Versus FATEH MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Gift‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1201(2) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Gift‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1201(2) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1201(2) (SCMR) (Mst. HAMIDA BIBI‑‑Petitioner Versus FATEH MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 31st August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 14‑11‑1983 in C.R. 1507‑D/83). ‑‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Finding of fact‑‑Respondents had challenged a gift made by their predecessor‑in‑interest in favour of the petitioner and their suit was decreed‑‑Petitioner contended that application of doctrine of Musha needed examination in the case and thus leave to appeal be granted‑ Held, if the said question alone had been the deciding factor, it might have been a fit case for the grant of leave to appeal but High Court's finding that making of the genuine gift in favour of petitioner, was otherwise not established and the findings in that behalf being unexceptionable, no useful purpose would be served by granting leave to appeal on the question of `Musha'.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a defendant against the dismissal of her Civil Revision, by the High Court. The respondents had challenged a gift made by their predecessor‑in -interest in favour of the petitioner. Their suit was decreed. The petitioner's appeal and Civil Revision were dismissed. Learned counsel relying on various judgments of the superior Courts, contended that the application of doctrine of `Musha' did need examination in this case and thus leave to appeal should be granted. After hearing him, we are of the view that if the said question alone had been the deciding factor, it might have been a fit case for the grant of leave to appeal. But it can be clearly understood from the High Court's judgment that making of the genuine gift in favour of the petitioner was otherwise not established and the findings in this behalf being unexceptionable, no useful purpose would be served by granting leave to appeal on the question of 'Musha'. The same, therefore, is refused. M.B‑A./H‑66/S Leave refused.