2006 PLP 987 (CLC)
Mst. ZEENAT KHATOON and 2 others — Petitioners Versus KHALIQDAD KHAN and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 987 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. ZEENAT KHATOON and 2 others — Petitioners Versus KHALIQDAD KHAN and 4 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Islamic Law |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 987 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Islamic Law as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 987 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 987 (CLC) (Mst. ZEENAT KHATOON and 2 others — Petitioners Versus KHALIQDAD KHAN and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rabnawaz Khan Niazi for Petitioners.
- Allah Wasaya Malik for Respondents Nos.1 to 3.
- Hashim Niazi for Respondent No.4.
Headnotes / Summary
Gifts in question were made by father in favour of his four sons excluding the three daughters
Daughters, in their suit for declaration impugned the gift mutations on ground that their father being old and infirm had not made any gift
Suit was decreed but appellate Court reversed the finding disregarding the material fact that one of brothers who was also a beneficiary of gift mutations, had testified the desire of his deceased father to distribute entire land to all children in accordance with Islamic law
Said brother deposed that impugned mutation was entered in his absence and such testimony belied the report appearing in mutation which showed his presence at the time impugned mutation was sanctioned
Concerned Patwari was not produced and report of Patwari did not indicate as to when donor gave intimation of oral gifts to Patwari
Witness of mutation confirmed the old age and infirmity of donor but he showed his lack of knowledge about deprivation of donor's daughters from their share inheritance
Absence of such explanation as to why such brother received less than his other brothers lent credence to contention of daughters that gifts were not recorded in accordance with any declaration made by their father
Appellate decree being result of non-reading and misreading of evidence same was set aside by High Court.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
The petitioners and the respondents are the sons and daughters of Allah Dad Khan deceased. Through two Mutations bearing Nos.1621 dated 16-9-1992 and 1746 dated 15-12-1992, Allah Dad Khan purportedly gifted his entire agricultural land to respondents Nos.1 to 4, who are his sons. Allah Dad Khan died on 1-8-1998.
2. The petitioners, who are the daughters of Allah Dad Khan, impugns the aforesaid mutations on the ground that their father, being old and infirm, had not made any gift and also that he was under the influence of respondent No.1 According to the petitioners, they have illegally been excluded from inheritance by the respondents.
3. The learned trial Court accepted the plea of the petitioners and decreed their suit. The learned Appellate Court, however, has reversed this finding. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed a great deal of emphasis on the testimony of Haq Dad Khan (respondent No.4), who was one of the beneficiaries of the aforesaid mutations. Haq Dad Khan appeared as D.W.4 and testified that his father, during his lifetime, had always expressed the desire to distribute his land to all children in accordance with Islamic Law. He categorically stated that the petitioners were entitled to their share in accordance with Islamic Law as per the wishes of Allah Dad Khan. The testimony of Haq Dad Khan (D.W.4) is relevant and admissible. The learned Appellate Court has not given any valid reason for disregarding the same.
4. The testimony of Haq Dad Khan (D.W.4) is also relevant in another context. He has deposed that he was in the PAF and was not present when the disputed mutations were entered or sanctioned. This testimony belies the report appearing on Mutation No.1746(Exh.P.3), which shows Haq Dad Khan to have accompanied his father Allah Dad Khan for the purpose of giving intimation of the gift to the Halqa Patwari. The Patwari has not been produced to controvert this testimony or to establish that Allah Dad Khan either declared or confirmed the gift before him.
5. The report of the Patwari on Mutation No.1621 (Exh.P.2) is even more damaging to the defence set up by the respondents/defendants. The said report has been made on the basis of a statement made by Khaliq Dad (respondent No.1) alone. There is no indication therein that the donor Allah Dad Khan had given intimation of the oral gift to the Patwari.
6. I have also gone through the testimony of D.W.1, namely, Mir Abdullah Khan, who purported- was a witness of the mutations in question. He confirmed that Allah Dad Khan was 90 years old at the time of the alleged gifts. In his entire testimony, the factum of gift and its ingredients have not been proved. In fact, he very candidly admitted that, apart from the fact he affixed his thumb-impression on the mutation for the purpose of identifying Allah Dad Khan, he knew nothing. In his cross-examination, he deposed that Haq Dad Khan was not present at the time of the mutation. It is very significant that he stated that only at the time of his testimony he carne to know that the daughters of Allah Dad Khan had been deprived of their share in the estate of Allah Dad Khan. The testimony of this witness cannot be taken as proof that Allah Dad Khan had made a gift only in favour of his sons and not his daughters.
7. Another aspect of the case, which undermines the credibility of respondents Nos.1 to 3, is that although, according to them, Allah Dad Khan had gifted his properly to his four sons, there is no explanation, at all, as to why Haq Dad Khan received less than his brothers. This circumstance also lends credence to the contention of the plaintiffs that the gifts were not recorded in accordance with any declaration made by Allah Dad Khan.
8. Unfortunately, the learned Appellate Court has not considered the above material aspects of the case and nor it has met the reasoning, which found favour with the learned trial Court. The Appellate decree, therefore, is a result of non-reading and misreading of the record. The same is, therefore, set aside. As a result, the decree of the learned trial Court dated 11-2-2004 stands restored. The petitioners shall also be entitled to their costs throughout. F.B./Z-11/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.