1989 PLP 1089 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD AFZAL and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. SURRAYA BEGUM and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1089 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑Arts.199 & 185(3)‑‑Muhammadan Law‑‑Gift‑‑Mutation of gift entered in favour of respondents by order of Commissioner passed by him m his revisional jurisdiction and confirmed by Board of Revenue‑‑Petitioners' bid to challenge Board of Revenue's order in Constitutional jurisdiction failed‑‑Constitutional petition filed by petitioners was misconceived‑‑Question whether gift was valid or not, was a question which could only be decided by Civil Court‑‑Petitioners thus had alternate adequate remedy available to them‑‑Petitioners' case was not fit one to invoke Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.‑‑Muhammadan Law. |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AFZAL and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. SURRAYA BEGUM and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1089 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1089 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑Arts.199 & 185(3)‑‑Muhammadan Law‑‑Gift‑‑Mutation of gift entered in favour of respondents by order of Commissioner passed by him m his revisional jurisdiction and confirmed by Board of Revenue‑‑Petitioners' bid to challenge Board of Revenue's order in Constitutional jurisdiction failed‑‑Constitutional petition filed by petitioners was misconceived‑‑Question whether gift was valid or not, was a question which could only be decided by Civil Court‑‑Petitioners thus had alternate adequate remedy available to them‑‑Petitioners' case was not fit one to invoke Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.‑‑Muhammadan Law. 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: 1989 PLP 1089 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD AFZAL and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. SURRAYA BEGUM and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Hasan, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Syed Niaz Ali Shah, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.l.
- Date of hearing: 5th September, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment, dated 5‑11‑1983 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No.4458 of 1983). ‑‑‑Arts.199 & 185(3)‑‑Muhammadan Law‑‑Gift‑‑Mutation of gift entered in favour of respondents by order of Commissioner passed by him m his revisional jurisdiction and confirmed by Board of Revenue‑‑Petitioners' bid to challenge Board of Revenue's order in Constitutional jurisdiction failed‑‑Constitutional petition filed by petitioners was misconceived‑‑Question whether gift was valid or not, was a question which could only be decided by Civil Court‑‑Petitioners thus had alternate adequate remedy available to them‑‑Petitioners' case was not fit one to invoke Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.‑‑[Muhammadan Law].
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑Sultan alias Thana owned some agricultural land. He made a gift of a part of his land in favour of Mst. Surraya Begum and Adalat Hussain whom he described to be his wife and son. The local Revenue Officer declined to attest the mutation of gift on the ground that his relationship with the donees had not been established. The donees filed a civil suit for a declaration on the basis of the said gift. Sultan appeared before the Court and confessed judgment whereupon the declaration sought by the donees was granted to them. The local Revenue Officer once again refused to attest the mutation with the objection that the gift did not cover the entire holding of the donor. Sultan once again appeared before the Revenue Officer and stated that in order to remove the objection he had gifted his entire land to his wife and son. However he died before the mutation could be attested. On his death a mutation of succession was entered and attested by the local Revenue Officer in favour of the petitioners who were his collaterals. Surraya Begum and Adalat Hussain filed an appeal before the Collector who remanded the case back to the local Revenue Officer for a fresh inquiry. Once again the local Revenue Officers declined to give effect to the gift and insisted on sanctioning a mutation of inheritance. The Collector upheld the order of the Revenue Officer. On revision the Commissioner set aside the orders of the Collector and the Revenue Officer and directed that a mutation on the basis of the gift be sanctioned in favour of the respondents. The petitioners moved the Board of Revenue against the order of the Commissioner but failed. They then invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to call in question the legality of the mutation. The writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge. The petitioners now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
2. It may be mentioned that the case of the petitioners before the Revenue Officer was that Mst. Surraya was not the wife but zar kharid (that is, a slave) of Sultan and that Adalat Hussain was not his son.
3. The writ petition was clearly misconceived. The question whether the gift was valid or not was a matter which could only be decided by a Civil Court. The petitioners had an alternate adequate remedy available to them. It was therefore not a fit case where the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court should have been invoked. We would therefore dismiss this petition. A.A./M‑770/S Petition dismissed.