1998 PLP 2333 (SCMR)
KHAN MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ROBINA MAROOF KHAN‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1998 PLP 2333 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Fazal Ilahi Khan and Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, JJ |
| Parties | KHAN MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ROBINA MAROOF KHAN‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Muhammadan Law‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 2333 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Muhammadan Law‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 2333 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Fazal Ilahi Khan and Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 2333 (SCMR) (KHAN MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ROBINA MAROOF KHAN‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qazi Abdur Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court and Malik Mehr Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th July, 1995.
- Qazi Abdur Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court and Malik Mehr Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 28‑11‑1994 of the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench, Abbottabad, in Civil Revision No. 141 of 1992). ‑‑‑‑Gift‑‑‑House in question was gifted to plaintiff at her Nikah ceremony by her father‑in‑law‑‑‑Plaintiff's suit for possession of house in question was decreed by Trial Court but the same was set aside by Appellate Court‑‑‑High Court in revision set aside judgment and decree of Appellate Court and restored that of Trial Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑High Court had reappraised entire evidence and came to conclusion that Appellate Court had misread evidence, misinterpreted document and misapplied law while giving decision and in setting aside finding of Trial Court‑‑‑High Court had maintained that two disinterested reliable witnesses as also scribe of deed had deposed that gift had been made by defendant in favour of plaintiff and that they had thumb‑impressed the scribe‑‑‑Scribe had deposed that gift deed was scribed at the instance of parties which fact had not been controverted by defendant‑‑‑Defendant had never challenged gift deed till the time that plaintiff, due to strained relations with her husband, brought the suit‑‑ Finding recorded by High Court was not open to exception‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3).
Judgment & Decree
FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.
Robina Begum respondent was married to Maroof Khan son of Khan Muhammad, petitioner, on 3-11-1985. At the time of Nikah the house in dispute was gifted to her by the petitioner and since 1987 she was allegedly residing in the same house alongwith her husband as an owner. As relations between the spouses became strained she filed suit for possession of the house. The suit was contested by the petitioner and his son; namely, Maroof Khan by filing their joint written statement in which they denied the contents of the plaint altogether.
2. After recording evidence of the parties on the issues which arose from the pleadings of the parties the learned Civil Judge decreed respondent/plaintiff's suit by judgment dated 12-6-1991. However, in appeal filed by the petitioner the learned Additional District Judge, Abbottabad on his finding that the gift was made on 3-11-1985 though the marriage took place on 10-11-1985, therefore, possession has never been delivered to the respondent under the gift. It was further held that the petitioner was an illiterate person, therefore, for that reason he has put his thumb-impression on the gift deed and that the same was never read out to him after it was scribed. Accordingly, appeal was accepted, the judgment and decree was set aside and the respondent/plaintiff's suit was dismissed.
3. Qazi Abdur Rashid, learned counsel for the petitioner heard and record perused. Learned counsel contended that in revision filed by the respondent/plaintiff learned High Court reappraised the entire evidence and came to the conclusion that the lower Appellate Court had misread the evidence, misinterpreted the document and misapplied the law while giving decision and in setting aside the finding of the learned Trial Court. Regarding gift deed it was held that two disinterested reliable witnesses as well as the scribe of the deed have deposed of the gift having been made by the petitioner in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and that he has thumb-impressed the same. The scribe has deposed that the deed was scribed at the instance of the parties which fact has not been controverted by the petitioner. Petitioner never challenged the gift deed till the time that respondent/plaintiff, due to strained relations with her husband, brought the present suit. Such being the case the finding recorded by the learned High Court is not open to any exception. Leave to appeal is, accordingly, refused. A.A./K-9/S Leave refused.