1998 PLP 1278 (MLD)
Mst. RABIA and others — Petitioners Versus Mst. FATEHA BIBI — Respondent
| Citation | 1998 PLP 1278 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. RABIA and others — Petitioners Versus Mst. FATEHA BIBI — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 1278 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 1278 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 1278 (MLD) (Mst. RABIA and others — Petitioners Versus Mst. FATEHA BIBI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mir Adam Khan for Petitioners
- 6. Mr. Mir Adam Khan, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner present and heard at length. Record of the case perused carefully.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 115
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42
Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of
Both Courts below on basis of evidence on record had concurrently declared that gift deed allegedly executed by plaintiff/respondent mother in favour of her defendant/petitioner regarding land in question, was not a valid gift, but was null and void as same was result of fraud and misrepresentation and was ineffective against right of plaintiff/respondent
Concurrent findings of Courts below based on evidence on record, not suffering from any illegality or material irregularity, could not be interfered with by High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
(5) Whether the requirements of gift has been fulfilled? (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for declaration as prayed for? (7) Whether plaintiff is entitled to the decree for permanent injunction and possession as prayed for? (8) Relief.
4. After recording the evidence of the parties, which they wished to produce, the Civil Judge, Swabi (Mr. Tahir Mehmood Khan) by his judgment recorded on 8-4-1996, decreed the respondent/plaintiff's suit and held that the gift deed (No. 325 attested on 13-9-1990), being void, was ineffective as against the rights of the respondent/plaintiff.
5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioners/defendants challenged the same before the District Judge (Mr. Alamzeb Khan) who, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the appeal vide his judgment/decree dated 27-6-1997. Hence, this revision petition.
6. Mr. Mir Adam Khan, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner present and heard at length. Record of the case perused carefully.
7. Admittedly, the question involved in the present case is as to whether the respondent/plaintiff had in fact gifted her property to her daughter i.e., petitioner No. 1 or not.
8. It may be stated at the very out-set that the trial Court has discussed the evidence produced by the parties, in support of their respective cases, in detail and has given his findings on each and every issue after discussing the evidence in detail. It thus came to the conclusion that the gift was not a valid gift and thus decreed the suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff.
9. The findings of the trial Court when challenged before the lower appellate Court were upheld. A perusal of the judgment of the District Judge (Mr. Alamzeb Khan) would show that he has dealt with the facts of the case in detail and after discussing each and every aspect of the case came to the conclusion that the gift in question was not valid and, therefore, dismissed the appeal and concurred with the findings of the trial Court. In support of his conclusion the District Judge placed reliance on the following cases:-- (1) Mst. Hassan Bibi v. Ghulam Siddique and others 1992 CLC (Peshawar) 402. (2) Mst. Aziza Begum v. Mst. Badshahan and others 1994 MLD (Peshawar) 1741. (3) Mst. Khalida Bibi v. Mst. Daryai Khunam and others 1994 MLD (Peshawar) 2339.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners addressed the Court in detail but miserably failed to make out a prima facie case so as to persuade this Court to admit this revision petition. On the other hand, I have also not been able to find out that the lower Courts have misread the evidence produced by the parties.
11. Since the judgments of the lower Courts do not suffer from any illegality/materal irregularity, therefore, this revision petition in my opinion, does not merit consideration and is dismissed in limine, alongwith Civil Miscellaneous. H.B.T./42/P Revision dismissed.