1989 PLP 1239 (SCMR)
AMI CHAND‑‑Petitioner Versus FAJROO‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1239 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | AMI CHAND‑‑Petitioner Versus FAJROO‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Gift‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1239 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Gift‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1239 (SCMR)?
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: 1989 PLP 1239 (SCMR) (AMI CHAND‑‑Petitioner Versus FAJROO‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Zainul Abidin, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 28th March. 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 28th May, 1985 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in C.R. No.1106‑D of 1985). ‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Contention of petitioner that he had not made any gift in favour of respondent and that latter's name had been added in the mutation through fraud and misrepresentation‑‑Petitioner in support of his contention stated that High Court as well as the subordinate Courts failed to notice a material circumstance that there was no reason at all why petitioner should have made any gift in favour of respondent and that the area given to him should be 5 times more than that gifted to his own daughters and even if there was a gift, it remained inchoate on account of non‑delivery of possession‑‑Leave to appeal was granted as contentions raised needed examination.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner was owner of 164 kanals and 4 marlas of land in Mahal Nainwal Jagir of Tehsil Kasur. On 28‑10‑66, a mutation of gift on his behalf was attested in favour of his 3 daughters and Fajroo. respondent. It may be mentioned that Fajroo was the son of his late wife's brother. Under the gift 5/6th share in the land was given to Fajroo while 1/6th share therein was given to his daughters. On 24‑7‑77, the petitioner filed a suit for a declaration that he had not made any gift in favour of Fajroo and that the latter's name had been added in the mutation through fraud and misrepresentation. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and the petitioner's appeal before the District Judge and revision before the High Court failed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. In support of this petition it is contended that the High Court as well as the subordinate Courts failed to notice a material circumstance that there was no reason at all why the petitioner should have made any gift in favour of Fajroo and that the area given to him should be 5 times more than that gifted to his own daughters. It is also contended that even if there was a gift, it remained inchoate on account of non‑delivery of possession.
3. The contentions raised need examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.5,
000. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any, within two months.'"
4. Status quo to he maintained during the pendency of the appeal M.B.A./A‑507/S Leave granted.