1986 PLP 1238 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and others — Petitioners Versus Mst. ISMAT JAN — Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1238 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Muhammad Afza1 Zullah, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and others — Petitioners Versus Mst. ISMAT JAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908), (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1238 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908), (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1238 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Muhammad Afza1 Zullah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1238 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and others — Petitioners Versus Mst. ISMAT JAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Afzal Siddiqi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on- Record for Respondent.
- Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Afzal Siddiqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑ Record for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 19-3-1984 in Regular Second Appeal No. 243 of 1982).
Art. 185(3)--Gift--Petition for leave to appeal--Petitioner, on authority of power of attorney given to him by father of respondent, made gift of land in dispute to his own sons--Suit brought by respondent against her being deprived of her share in disputed property, decreed by Courts below on ground that said power of attorney which formed basis of gift had not been legally proved to have been executed by alleged executants--Alleged executant at relevant time was residing out of country--Findings and reasons given by Courts below on lack of proof of document regarding its authenticity and execution unexceptionable--Leave to appeal refused.
S. 3--Limitation--Void transaction--Gift challenged in suit void--Suit, held, not barred by limitation.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 19‑3‑1984 of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioners' Regular Second Appeal arising out of a land/gift case, was dismissed. Muhammad Nawaz petitioner No. 1 acting on a purported power of attorney given to him by Shahbaz Khan, the original owner of the land, made gift of the suit‑land to his own two sons, Muhammad Sheraz and Muhammad Iqbal, petitioners Nos. 2 and
3. Mst. Ismat Jan respondent, sister of Muhammad Nawaz, filed a wait seeking remedy against her being deprived of her share ('tom the suit property which admittedly belonged to her father Shahbaz Khan. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit. But the learned First Appellate Court decreed it on the ground that the alleged power of attorney which was the basis of the gift made by Muhammad Nawaz, had not been legally proved to have been executed by Shahbaz Khan. The petitioners' Second Appeal in the High Court met the same result, the first appellate judgment was affirmed, therefore, they have now sought leave to appeal. We have heard the learned counsel in support of the two pleas regarding proof of the authenticity and execution of the power of attorney as also on the question of limitation. The learned Judge in the High Court made the following observation with regard to the power of attorney:‑ "Having given anxious consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after carefully perusing the record, I am inclined to hold that the document Exh. D/4 does not purport to have been executed before and authenticated by a Notary Public or any Court, Judge, Magistrate, Pakistani Counsel or Vice‑counsel or representative of the Central Government." The alleged executant namely, Shahbaz Khan was at the relevant time .residing in Indonesia that is why the High Court had to make observation with regard to authentication. The findings and reasons given by the learned Courts below on lack of proof of the document regarding its authenticity and execution, are unexceptionable. On the question of limitation also the gift being void itself the suit, it was held by the learned Courts below, was not barred by limitation. The learned counsel did not controvert this point. We, therefore, do not consider it necessary to make any further comment in this behalf. It is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal the same accordingly is refused. M.Y.H.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????? Leave refused.