1991 PLP 1779 (SCMR)
Mst. MUMTAZ — Petitioner Versus AFSAR KHAN and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1779 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Rustam S. Sidhwa, J |
| Parties | Mst. MUMTAZ — Petitioner Versus AFSAR KHAN and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Pardanashin lady |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1779 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Pardanashin lady as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1779 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Rustam S. Sidhwa, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1779 (SCMR) (Mst. MUMTAZ — Petitioner Versus AFSAR KHAN and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Illahi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th February, 1990.
- Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Illahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 28-10-1989 of the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench Abbottabad, in Civil Revision No.180 of 1984).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Allegations of fraud and collusion
Petitioner lady had sought declaration to the effect that she continued to be the owner in possession of land in question, notwithstanding attestation of mutations of alienation from her side in favour of respondent as the same were based on fraud and collusion and thus were ineffective
Petitioner's such suit was dismissed by trial Court; decreed by Appellate Court but appellate judgment was reversed by High Court in its revisional jurisdiction
Circumstances which had gone against petitioner's plea of fraud on the plea regarding protection to a pardanashin lady were; that she had actively participated in the transaction; had not suffered any handicap and had also thumb-marked certain entries there being no explanation for the same
Apart from such factual aspect, husband of petitioner had appeared with her during mutation proceedings and she appeared several times and her interests were then fully protected even if questions relating to her being a Pardanashin lady were brought under scrutiny
One of the transactions being an exchange, petitioner while alleging fraud regarding the entire exchange, had accepted the property received in exchange and was not willing to give it away, thus wanting to avoid that part of exchange transaction in which she had to part with her property given in exchange of the property retained by her
Petitioner could not have been allowed both the benefits
Fact whether petitioner was a victim of fraud was doubtful
Neither allegations regarding fraud and collusion had been accepted by Courts below nor it seemed that petitioner suffered from any practical disability as a Pardanashin lady
Case was not such in which any of the principles laid down in Ghulam Ali's case reported as PLD 1990 SC 1, would be helpful to petitioner
Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi PLD 1990 SC 1 rel.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by plaintiff in a declaratory suit; against the acceptance by the High Court, of respondents' Civil Revision. The petitioner had sought declaration to the effect that she continues to be the owner in possession of the suit land notwithstanding the attestation of mutations of alienation from her side in favour of respondent No.1 as according to her, the same were based on fraud, collusion and thus were ineffective. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. It was, however, decreed on petitioner's appeal but the appellate judgment was reversed by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction; and the trial Court judgment and decree of dismissal of petitioner's suit was restored. In reality the question of alleged fraud and collusion etc. has been linked by the petitioner with respondent No.2, who is her erstwhile husband‑‑‑the marriage between the two allegedly having 'been dissolved. The circumstances which have gone against the petitioner's plea of fraud or even the plea regarding protection to a Pardanashin lady are; firstly, that she actively participated in the transactions and had not suffered any handicap. She had also thumb‑marked certain entries and there is no explanation. Not only this, the husband of the petitioner i.e. respondent No.2, had appeared with her during the mutation proceedings and she appeared several times and her interests were then fully protected even if the questions relating to her being a pardanashin lady are brought under scrutiny. Not only this, one of the transactions was an exchange. The petitioner while alleging fraud regarding the entire exchange, accepted the property received in exchange and was not willing to give it away. She strangely enough wanted to avoid that part of the exchange transaction in which she had to part with her property given in exchange of the property retained by her. She could not have been allowed both the benefits. It is doubtful whether she was the victim. of fraud. As to what really happened on account of which she felt aggrieved and then subsequently the marriage also was ultimately dissolved, remained shrouded in mystery. Be that as it may, neither the allegations regarding fraud and collusion having been accepted by the learned Court below nor it seems that the petitioner suffered from any practical disability as a Pardanashin lady. And as distinguished from the case of Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi PLD 1990 SC 1 the present case is not such in which any of the principles laid down therein would be helpful to the petitioner. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused. A.A./M‑1320/S?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.,