1989SCMR1415(1) (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989SCMR1415(1) (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Muhammadan Law‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR1415(1) (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Muhammadan Law‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR1415(1) (PLP)?
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: 1989SCMR1415(1) (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ahmed Waheed Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A 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 7‑4‑1984 in R.SA. No.535 of 1971). Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Gift‑‑Validity and genuineness‑ Concurrent findings of Courts below with regard to the validity and genuineness of gift were recorded against the petitioner‑‑Petitioner tried to assail the findings of fact by advancing various arguments none which was convincing‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑The defendant in a declaratory suit relating to a gift, has sought leave to appeal against the dismissal by the High Court of his Regular Second Appeal‑‑he had failed before the learned lower Court. The learned Judge in the High Court has upheld the concurrent findings of the Courts below with regard to the validity and genuineness of gift which go against the petitioner. The learned counsel in respect of this petition has tried to A assail the findings of fact by advancing various arguments none of which has impressed us. No justification has been made out for interference by this Court for re‑examination of the evidence. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused. M.B.A./M‑861/S Leave refused.