1995SCMR565 (PLP)
SULEMAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus NAZAR MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1995SCMR565 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SULEMAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus NAZAR MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995SCMR565 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995SCMR565 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995SCMR565 (PLP) (SULEMAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus NAZAR MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Shaukat Ali Mehr, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Asif Ahmad Khan Khosa, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 13th December, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 9‑6‑1993 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, in Civil Revision No. 1863/1980) Muhammadan Law‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Gift‑‑‑Concurrent findings of all the three Courts below on the factum of gift were fully supported by evidence on record ‑‑‑Donee was recorded in possession of land in question, after attestation for gift mutation in his own right, which had not been rebutted in evidence‑‑‑Gift completed by delivery of possession could not be challenged even if it was proved that donor did take possession by force either before institution of suit or during pendency of suit.
Judgment & Decree
FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.‑‑‑Gift Mutations Nos. 2798 and 2791 attested on 13‑6‑1969 and 11‑1‑1979, respectively, on behalf of the petitioner in favour of the respondent were challenged in civil suit to be fraudulent and ineffective on his rights. Prayer was also made for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interference with his possession.
2. This suit was instituted on 25‑4‑1972. Respondent contested the suit and after framing of issues and recording evidence of the parties the learned trial Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The learned District Judge re appraised the entire evidence and affirmed the finding of the learned trial Judge. Such finding was also maintained in revision petition by the learned High Court.
3. We have heard the learned counsel and perused the record.
4. It appears from the evidence on record that petitioner's daughter was married to respondent and the gift mutation was attested when his daughter was alive and he was hand and glove with the respondent. Subsequently, it was on the death of his daughter that petitioner chose to challenge the gift mutation through the suit. The contention of the learned counsel that the Courts below have misread the evidence as possession of the land was never delivered to the respondent is not supported by the record. The findings given by the Courts below are fully supported by oral and documentary evidence in the case. Respondent‑donee is recorded in possession of the suit land after attestation of the gift mutation on his own right which has not been rebutted in evidence. The petitioner's admission at the trial that respondent took forcibly the wheat crop sown in land during pendency of the suit is of no help to the petitioner as the gift once completed by delivery of possession would not be challenged on that score even if it is proved that the donor did take possession by force subsequently either before institution or during pendency of the suit. The concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the three Courts below, therefore, are not open to any exception. Leave is refused and petition is dismissed. A.A./S‑918/S Leave refused.