P L D 1963 W (PLP)
GOHAR ALI AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus SHEIKHU AHMAD‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1963 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Nasir Ahmad, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | GOHAR ALI AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus SHEIKHU AHMAD‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Gift‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1963 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Gift‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1963 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Nasir Ahmad, 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 1963 W (PLP) (GOHAR ALI AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus SHEIKHU AHMAD‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rab Nawaz for Petitioners.
- A. D. Faruq for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Gift by widow voidable and not void‑Widow or female shown as owner in revenue record‑No presumption that she is limited owner.
Judgment & Decree
Gift‑
Gift by widow voidable and not void‑Widow or female shown as owner in revenue record‑No presumption that she is limited owner. Rab Nawaz for Petitioners. A. D. Faruq for Respondent. This is an appeal against an order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Lahore Division, reviewing an earlier order of his, relating to certain land in dispute which in the revenue records is entered in the ownership of Mst. Raj Bibi. Mst. Raj Bibi had made a gift of this land in favour of Gauhar Ali, petitioner and a mutation to that effect was sanctioned by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. Sheikh Ahmad who claims to be a collateral of the husband of Mst. Raj Bibi went in appeal to the Collector who accepted it on two wrong propositions of law viz., that a female or a widow can only have a limited interest in immovable property ; further that a gift by her was ab initio void. In the second appeal the learned Additional Commissioner upheld the decision of the Collector. A review of this order was applied for and the Additional Commissioner modified his order to the extent that the gift will be effective during the life‑time of Mst. Raj Bibi. The present revision has been filed against this order. The two propositions of law already mentioned and on which the case has been decided by the officers below are not sustainable? A widow or a female is competent to own property in her own right and unless the revenue records clearly so indicate a presumption that she has succeeded to the property with a limited life interest cannot be raised. Even if it were conceded that the widow in the present case has a‑life‑interest in the property the gift would be a voidable transaction and not ab initio void There are several rulings to sustain the view stated by me above I would, therefore, set aside the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner and direct that the mutation should be sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. Of course, it is still open to the aggrieved party to go to a competent Court of civil jurisdiction or the Custodian of Evacuee Property to have the transaction set aside or get the gift limited to life‑time of the donor. K. M. A. Revision accepted.