P L D 1959 W (PLP)
Haji GUL MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus Mst. HASSAIN JAMALA‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1959 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | Haji GUL MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus Mst. HASSAIN JAMALA‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Mutation‑, (b) Muhammadan Law‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1959 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Mutation‑, (b) Muhammadan Law‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1959 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1959 W (PLP) (Haji GUL MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus Mst. HASSAIN JAMALA‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Mutation once rejected cannot be considered on review after 20 years. Gift‑--Mutation on basis of gift rejected‑Presumption that donor continued to be full owner.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Muhammadan Law‑-- Gift‑--Mutation on basis of gift rejected‑Presumption that donor continued to be full owner. It is quite clear that a mutation which was rejected more than 20 years ago, cannot now be considered by way of review, A especially when the land in dispute was dealt with again on a separate mutation and allowed to be mutated in favour of the respondent. The petitioner has in his possession a `Fatwah' issued in 1948 from a religious institution in Kalat State, and this `Fatwah' says that a gift with possession, once effected, cannot be revoked. His argument is that the land in dispute was first gifted in his favour and that even if the mutation was not sanctioned, the fresh gift in favour of the respondent was void. I cannot accept this position, because if the mutation in his favour was rejected in the first instance, the presumption in law is that the donor continued, xo be the full owner of the property till he gifted it again to the respondent. The Commissioner, Peshawar Division, was fully justified) in holding that a change cannot be considered on the basis of a miscellaneous application submitted in 1955, whereas the donor had himself died in 1935. I, therefore, find myself unable to interfere in favour of the petitioner. His petition is accordingly dismissed without issuing notice to the other party. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.