1968 SCMR 573 (PLP)
MIAN GHULAM AHMAD-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SARWAR AND OTHERS — Respondents
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 573 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Fazle-Akbar and Muhammad Yaqoob Ali, JJ |
| Parties | MIAN GHULAM AHMAD-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SARWAR AND OTHERS — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 573 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 573 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Fazle-Akbar and Muhammad Yaqoob Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 573 (PLP) (MIAN GHULAM AHMAD-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SARWAR AND OTHERS — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Khalid Mahmood Pasha, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Razzak Raja, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 23rd November 1967, in Writ Petition No. 774/R of 1967). (a) Mutation-Does not create title over property. (b) Gift-Widow gifting away property to her nephew on death of her husband-Mutation in favour of nephew-Person challenging mutation and alleging that under customary law widow, being limited miner was not competent to make gift of property-Civil Court, held, proper forum for challenging validity of gift and not Revenue Authority.
Judgment & Decree
FAZLE-AKBAR, J.-In the year 1960, the respondent Mst. takhat Nishat made a gift of the land which had been allotted to her in lieu of the land owned by her late husband Abdul Fatah in India, in favour of her nephew Muhammad Samar. On 26.6.66 the Assistant Collector sanctioned mutation of the gift in favour of the donee. The present petitioner Mian Ghulaee Ahmed then filed an appeal against his order, but'the saute was dismissed by the Collector and revision filed by him before the Additional Commissioner also met with the same fate. A second revision filed before the Board of Revenue was also dismissed in limine. Mien GhularA Ahmed then filed a writ petition in, the High. Court but it was summarily rejected. The learned counsel attempted to argue that Mst. Bakhat Nishan being a limited owner under the Customary Law was not competent to make the gift in question in favour of her nephew. The Member of the Board of Revenue has rightly pointed out that he was not competent to go behind the mutation and question the nature of the right. It will suffice to say that mutation does not create title over the property. He, therefore, rightly, declined to enter into the question of validity of the gift. The High Court was, therefore, justified in declining to interfere with hie order. The High Court has also rightly pointed out that the proper.forum for challenging such a gift would be a Civil Court and not, the Revenue Authirity. This petition is accordingly dismissed. Leave refused.