1989SCMR567 (PLP)
NOOR KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ALAM KHATOON‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989SCMR567 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | NOOR KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ALAM KHATOON‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR567 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR567 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR567 (PLP) (NOOR KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ALAM KHATOON‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Allah Wasaya Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 14th November, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed to C.R. No.1502/D/1983, dated 15‑I1‑1983). ‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), A:t.185(3)--Gift-- Plaintiff`s suit challenging gift purported to have been made by her in defendant's favour dismissed by Trial Court, but decreed by Appellate Court on appeal which was upheld by High Court in revision‑‑Order impugned‑‑Two Courts below having carefully examined version of plaintiff vis-a-vis disputed gift and having also held that she had no independent advice, rendered finding of facts against petitioner‑defendant No justification having. been made out to set aside finding of fact or to doubt the veracity of plaintiff, leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
Allah Wasaya Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 14th November, 1988. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This petition by a defendant, in a suit for declaration, is directed against the dismissal by the High Court of petitioner's Civil Revision. The suit by the respondent (sister of the petitioner) challenged a gift purported to have been made by her in petitioner's favour, was dismissed. Her appeal however, was allowed on the ground that the petitioner had failed to satisfy the Court on Issue No.7 which related to the validity of the gift. The High Court upheld the appellate decision; therefore, this petition for leave to appeal. Learned counsel has contended that the execution of the gift deed having been established the respondent had failed to establish that in fact the gift was not made. The learned two Courts below having carefully examined the version of the respondent vis‑a‑vis the disputed gift and having also held that she had no independent advice, rendered findings of facts against the petitioner. Her version A has been believed. No justification has been made out to set aside the findings of fact or to doubt the veracity of respondent at this stage. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. AA./N‑119/S Leave to appeal refused,