1989 PLP 1947 (SCMR)
ALLAH DITTA Petitioner Versus GHULAM FATIMA and another Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1947 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | ALLAH DITTA Petitioner Versus GHULAM FATIMA and another Respondents |
| Primary Law | Qanun‑e‑Shahadat (10 of 1984)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1947 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Qanun‑e‑Shahadat (10 of 1984)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1947 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1947 (SCMR) (ALLAH DITTA Petitioner Versus GHULAM FATIMA and another Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- CA. Rahman, Advocate, instructed by Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Rana MA. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 14th January, 1985 of the Lahore High Court in R.SA. No.(?) of 1985). ‑‑‑Art.34‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Factum of gift‑‑Denial by donor of factum of gift and subsequent denial of gift by donee herself‑‑Effect‑ Plaintiffs suit challenging gift alleged to. have been made by him in favour of donee defendant and consequential challenge to the further alienation made by donee to petitioner, was decreed and alienee petitioner's appeals failed upto the High Court‑‑Donee after the admission about the gift in the first instance in her written statement, resiled from such admission subsequently‑‑Statement of such interested donee, however, was of secondary importance‑‑Plaintiff, the alleged donor, did not own the gift and he was believed by all the Courts below‑‑No basis was thus left for upholding the alienation made by alleged donee in favour of alienee petitioner‑‑Concurrent findings of fact did not suffer from any error, in law or principle‑‑No justification was made out for grant of leave to appeal‑ Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a defendant, against the dismissal by the High Court, of his Regular Second Appeal. The suit filed by the respondent No.2 challenging a gift purported to have been made by him in favour of respondent No.1 and consequential challenge to the further alienation made by her (respondent No.1) to the petitioner, was decreed. The petitioner having failed throughout up to the High Court has sought leave to appeal. It is not denied that after the admission about the gift in the first instance in her written statement, even the donee respondent No.1, resiled from this admission subsequently. Be that as it may, the statement of the interested donee is only of secondary importance. In this case respondent No.2 who admittedly is the alleged donor did not own the gift. He has been believed. There was no basis left for upholding the alienation made by the so‑called donee in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly the stress of the learned counsel on the statement and the conduct of the donee is of no avail to the petitioner. Similarly his criticism I regarding concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner is of no avail to him; G because, they do not suffer from any error, in law or principle. No justification having been made for grant of leave to appeal, the same, therefore, is refused. A.A./A‑545/S Leave refused.