2007 PLP 50 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF — Appellant Versus IMAM BAKHSH and 6 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 50 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHRAF — Appellant Versus IMAM BAKHSH and 6 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Islamic Law |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 50 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Islamic Law as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 50 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 50 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ASHRAF — Appellant Versus IMAM BAKHSH and 6 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahzad Nasir for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Gift of entire property in favour of plaintiff by his deceased brother--Gift was challenged by three minor sons left behind by the deceased
Neither one of the marginal witnesses nor scribe of the gift deed was examined by plaintiff
Later on plaintiff produced his brother but his name as a witness appeared to have been interpolated subsequently
Courts below had, for good reason, disbelieved the factum of gift
None of grounds mentioned in S.100, C.P.C. which could have justified interference in impugned decree in second appeal, was pointed out.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
This second appeal impugns the concurrent findings of the learned trial Court, dated 6-4-2005 and of the learned lower appellate Court, dated 5-12-2005 whereby a suit for declaration filed by the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed.
2. The facts of the case have been set-out in the impugned judgments and need not therefore, be reproduced in extenso.
3. The appellant-plaintiff is the brother of Imam Bakhsh deceased who was the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. The case of the appellant was that, vide gift deed (Exh.P.1), dated 19-5-1996, Imam Bakhsh had gifted his entire property in Mauza Qaim Bharwana and Chak No.490/JB to him. It may be noted that Imam Bakhsh died 25 days later. Both Courts below have disbelieved the appellant. It is important to note that Muhammad Inayat, who was one of the marginal witnesses to Exh.P.1, was not examined and nor was the scribe Maqsood Ahmad produced as a witness. The appellant examined Muhammad Hanif, who is one of the marginal witnesses and also produced his brother Ahmad Bakhsh as second marginal witness. Both Courts below have concluded that the name of Ahmad Bakhsh as a witness was interpolated subsequently. I have the benefit of the original record and have come to the same conclusion. It is thus clear that the learned Courts below have, for good reasons, disbelieved the factum of gift. Moreover, it is evident that respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3, who are the sons of Imam Bakhsh deceased are minors and the appellant, as their uncle (chacha) has fabricated Exh.P.1 to deprive the orphaned children of his dead brother of their legitimate inheritance.
4. In the foregoing circumstances, I find the impugned decrees to be unexceptionable. Furthermore, learned counsel for the appellant was unable to advert to any of the grounds mentioned in section 100, C.P.C., which would justify interference in the impugned decrees in second appeal. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs throughout. F.B./M-588/L Appeal dismissed.