1987 PLP 2058 (SCMR)
MACHHIA‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. PANAN‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 2058 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MACHHIA‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. PANAN‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Muhammadan Law‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 2058 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Muhammadan Law‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 2058 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 2058 (SCMR) (MACHHIA‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. PANAN‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Hanif Niazi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 29th July, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 10‑6‑1980, of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No.879/D of 1980). ‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Gift‑‑Petitioner, husband of respondent, one month before their Nikah, making gift of agricultural land in favour of respondent and a mutation with respect thereto attested by local revenue authorities‑‑Finding of District Judge that petitioner had made a valid gift in favour of respondent not suffering from any infirmity‑‑High Court, held, had very properly refused to interfere with such finding‑‑Petition for leave to appeal found to be without any merit and dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner is the husband of the respondent. In 1958, just a month before their Nikah, a mutation was attested by the local revenue authorities showing that the petitioner had made a gift of about 230 Kanals of agricultural land in favour of the respondent. Some thirteen years later there was an estrangement between the spouses, perhaps, for the reason that the petitioner had taken a second wife. However, that may be in 1971 he filed a suit to challenge the validity of the gift alleging that he had neither made the gift nor parted with the possession of the land. The trial Court decreed the suit but on appeal by the respondent, the District Judge held that the petitioner had made a valid gift in favour of the respondent. Accordingly, he accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit. The High Court in revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere with the finding of the learned District Judge. The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal from this Court,
2. It is to be noticed that the petitioner had not only himself reported the gift to the Patwari but that he was also present at the time of the attestation of mutation. As regards the transfer of possession, the land was being tilled by two tenants. They appeared at the trial and stated that they were tenants under the respondent. It is also to be noticed that the respondent was an illiterate woman who did not herself manage her property. In the circumstances, even if it be assumed that the land was being tilled by or through the petitioner it will not be wrong to infer that he was doing so on behalf of his wife, particularly so when he had himself got the mutation attested and had remained silent for about thirteen years till he got married again.
3. It will thus, appear that the finding of the learned District Judge that the petitioner had made a valid gift in favour of the respondent does not suffer from any infirmity. The High Court, therefore, very properly refused to interfere with it. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. S.Q./M‑210/S Petition dismissed.