P L D 1989 Supreme Court 518 (PLP)

Khaqan Babar, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents Date of hearing: 14th June, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH. J.‑‑Leave to appeal~ has been sought by the plaintiff side in a suit for declaration; against the dismissal by the High Court, of their Civil Revision. The dispute relates to the property left by Karim Bakhsh the predecessor‑in‑interest of the parties. Karim Bakhsh had three sons and two daughters. He allegedly made a gift in favour of two sons only namely; Muhammad Din and Ilam‑ud‑Din. The petitioners side is their successors. All his remaining children challenged this alienation. It appears that there was a compromise amongst the parties before the Collector who was scrutinizing the validity and/or existence of the said gift. Karim Bakhsh and ]lam Din are stated to have executed power of attorney in favour of one of donees; namely, Muhammad Din aforementioned who was also a party. He made a statement on his own behalf as also the attorney whereupon the gift was not acted upon. This position was upheld by the Member, Board of Revenue. The petitioners/ plaintiffs then filed a suit on the basis of the original alleged gift made by Karim Bakhsh in favour of Muhammad Din and Ilam‑ud‑Din, which was dismissed. Their appeal and Civil Revision also having been dismissed by the High Court leave to appeal has now been sought. Learned counsel repeated before us the main arguments advanced before the High Court; namely, that Tamleek in favour of Ilam‑ud‑Din in fact and in Muslim Law which governs the parties was a complete gift and that even if the power of attorney allegedly executed by Karim Bakhsh in favour of Muhammad Din was treated as genuine and valid, Muhammad Din had no right or authority to surrender the rights of Ilam‑ud‑Din. Learned counsel has relied on Said Akbar and others v. Mst. Kakai PLD 1975 SC 377 in support of his contention that the Tamleek in question was in reality a gift. After hearing the learned counsel at some length we have no reason to differ with the reasoning of the High Court in rejecting the petitioners' plea. Otherwise too it would be possible to note that during the proceedings before the Revenue Authorities the entire family entered into a mutual settlement which had become necessary on account of one sided attitude of Karim Bakhsh in attempting to dispose of the property in favour of two sons only depriving the other children. In that settlement a family arrangement was made in which all concerned, it seems, participated. And it was as a result thereof as stated above, that a new arrangement of devolution which is admittedly in accordance with Islamic law, was acted upon. That being so, no justification has been made out for interference with the impugned' judgment. If the settlement had been against Islamic law, the position might then be different. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused. M. B. A./S‑313/S Leave refused.