1989 PLP 1170 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. HUSSAINA BEGUM and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1170 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. HUSSAINA BEGUM and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Gift‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1170 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Gift‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1170 (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 1170 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. HUSSAINA BEGUM and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Aqil Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and MA. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 7th September, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 4‑3‑1984 in Regular Second Appeal No.183 of 1983): ‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Plea of petitioner based on a gift said to have been made by `his father in his favour‑‑Concurrent findings of fact on the issue of gift were against petitioner‑‑Such findings did not suffer from any infirmity legal or otherwise‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULIAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a defendant in a declaratory suit regarding inheritance, against the dismissal by the High Court of his Regular Second Appeal. The respondents' suit for a share in the inheritance of parties' father, claiming as his daughters, has been decreed against the petitioner throughout. His plea was based on a gift said, to have been made by the father in favour of the son (petitioner) only. After hearing the learned counsel, we agree with the learned Judge in t the High Court that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the so‑called gift claimed by the petitioner which go against him, were not liable to be set aside by the High Court. On the question of appreciation of evidence and facts, the impugned findings do not suffer from any infirmity, legal or otherwise. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. M.BA./M‑848/S Leave refused.