Suit was decreed concurrently

Mere construction of a retaining wall or possession over part of a separate khasra cannot establish contiguity unless the appellant had ownership of the intervening land, which he did not

Claim of appellant being Shafi Jaar was contradicted by the physical layout of the land, as the appellant's land was at a higher elevation than the water channel making irrigation from a common source impossible

Informer was never produced before the Trial Court, which omission was neither explained nor justified

Importance of the informer's evidence could not be ignored, as it formed the basic foundation for the performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat

Without evidence of informer, the appellant's version regarding the time, place and manner of acquiring knowledge of the sale remained uncorroborated

Non-production of the informer may be fatal and may result in an adverse inference being drawn against the pre-emptor

Requirement of Talb-i-Muwathibat under Section 13 of the Act, therefore, remained unproved

High Court rightlyset aside the concurrent findings of the courts below regarding Talb-i-Muwathibat in its revisional jurisdiction.

Muslim female of sound mind who had attained the age of puberty could validly contract marriage with a person of her own choice and she could not sever her marriage/Nikah so entered by her

Marriage would not be invalid in absence of the consent of Wali

Simple acknowledgement of husband and wife with regard to their Nikah was sufficient to prove the same

Court was bound to protect a valid marriage

Plaintiff had acknowledged her Nikah with her earlier husband and there was no alternate for the Court not to believe her statement

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Suit property, in the present case, was a mountain which was not in the direct possession of any party and was being used only as a pasture

Plaintiffs had brought claim for cancellation of deeds, declaration of their title and injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering or obstructing from utilizing the said mountain

Plaintiffs, in circumstances, were not bound to seek relief for possession in the present case

Findings recorded by the Courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Settlement Officer passed the order that the suit land be entered in the name of defendants in the column of ownership of Missal-e-Haqiyat

Contention of plaintiffs was that the suit property was reserved for mosque of the village

Suit was decreed concurrently

Validity

Defendants were in permissive possession of suit property in lieu of rendering service of Imamat of the mosque

Defendants had failed to establish that suit land was their ancestral Serai

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Scribe of the deed was to be considered as witness of alleged transaction in the present case as he knew the seller earlier

Plaintiff had established agreement to sell through two witnesses and had offered a plausible justification for non-production of one of the marginal witnesses being close relative of defendant

Agreement to sell had been established, in circumstances

No mis-reading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below

Person who purchased property which was the subject matter of a lis could not put forward the plea of a bona fide purchaser

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs remained alive for more than twenty five years but she did not initiate any legal proceedings to seek her inherited estate

Law aids the vigilant and not the indolent

Doctrine of laches was applicable in the present case

Plaintiffs had lost enforcement of their right due to lapse of ninety three years and a number of mutations had been attested ever since

Limitation could be ignored when matter was with regard to inheritance

Party should have approached the Court and take recourse to legal remedies with due diligence

When suit had been filed by legal heirs of the right-holder after his/her death then law of limitation would apply

Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below were set aside and suit was dismissed

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Defendant while appearing in the witness box had not mentioned the date, time, place and names of witnesses in whose presence oral gift was made

Prerequisites for a valid gift were offer, acceptance and delivery of possession

Non-availability of any of the said ingredients would vitiate the validity of the gift transaction

Defendant, in the present case had neither asserted the said ingredients of gift nor proved the same

Plaintiff while appearing in the witness box had corroborated her stance that fraud had been committed while sanctioning the impugned gift mutation

Defendant, in the present case had failed to prove the ingredients of a valid gift

Defendant had not produced material witnesses of gift mutation i.e. Lumberdar, Patwari concerned, deed writer, stamp vendor as well as Tehsildar

Defendant had failed to prove the alleged gift mutation in circumstances

Plaintiff was a pardanasheen lady and revenue officer while sanctioning the impugned mutation should have taken care and caution with regard to genuineness of transaction

Beneficiary of a transaction with pardanasheen lady should have established that same was free from any influence, misrepresentation and fraud and consideration amount equal to the value of property had been paid and said lady had independent advice of near and dear ones and was aware to understand the nature of transaction

Defendant had neither asserted nor proved that any independent advice was available to the donor at the time of impugned transaction

Impugned gift transaction and mutation were illegal and void in circumstances

No illegality, irregularity, mis-reading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Contention of plaintiff, in suit for declaration and permanent injunction, was that he was owner in possession of the suit property

Suit was decreed concurrently

Validity

Preconditions attracting the provisions of S.11, C.P.C. were that parties and issues in the previous and subsequent suit should be the same litigating under the same title

Parties in the previous suit and in the present suit were not the same and issues to be determined were also different

Reliefs sought in both the suits were different

Mandatory preconditions for attracting the principle of res judicata were not available in the present case

Principle of re judicata was not applicable, in circumstances

Both the Courts below had exhaustively dealt with each and every issue and assigned cogent reasons for their findings

Defendant had failed to point out any defect in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below

Courts below had neither assumed jurisdiction nor had vested in them nor had failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them by law

Defendant had no good case for interference into the findings recorded by the Courts below

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Contention of plaintiffs was that they were entitled for their shares from the inheritance of deceased whereas defendants contended that earlier suit filed on behalf of plaintiffs had been dismissed for non-prosecution

Suit was decreed concurrently

Validity

Plaintiffs being legal heirs of deceased were entitled for their shares from the inheritance

Legacy on the death of a Muslim would automatically devolve upon his legal heirs

Strong and convincing evidence was required to exclude a legal heir from inheritance

Defendant had failed to point out any mis-reading or non-reading of evidence in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below

Conduct of a party could not stop him from claiming his legal share from inheritance

Principles of res judicata and estoppel were not attracted in the present case

Female legal heir could not be deprived of right of inheritance mere on oral assertion that she had surrendered her right in favour of male member of family

Second appeal was dismissed in circumstances. [Paras. 6, 7, 10, 11, 14 & 19 of the judgment]

Plaintiff in order to prove his case had himself appeared before the Trial Court and had supported the stance taken in the plaint

Plaintiff had also produced Notary Public and marginal witness of agreement who had supported his stance

Defendant had denied the claim of plaintiff in his written statement but he had admitted the claim of plaintiff in his statement recorded before the Trial Court

Plaintiff had proved his claim by adducing reliable and cogent evidence before the Trial Court

Courts below had properly examined the record and had rendered a just and right conclusion

No illegality or irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

No illegality or material irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Defendant had alienated the suit property during pendency of litigation and his conduct debarred him from seeking relief

Courts below had rightly attended all the facts and circumstances of the case

No illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error had been pointed out in the findings recorded by the Courts below

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Nothing was on record that donor made a declaration of gift which was accepted by the donee and possession of suit land was delivered under gift to the donee

Defendant had failed to prove the factum of gift in his favour

Defendant had not pleaded that suit property was gifted away to him out of love and affection

Donee had not mentioned any date and place where offer and acceptance of gift was made and pursuance thereof possession was delivered to him

Ingredients of a valid gift had not been fulfilled in the present case

Donee was required to specify the date, time and place of the offer made and complied by him and when possession was delivered to him

Scribe of gift deed was not produced to testify the execution of impugned gift deed

High Court observed that impugned gift deed was fraudulent and was never executed

No mis-reading, non-reading of evidence or any illegality or irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below

Revision was dismissed in, circumstances.

P. T. I Form did not create any title in favour of any person on the basis of entries therein but same could only be a valid evidence of proof of holding of possession

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

No misreading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below

Findings recorded by the Courts below were neither perverse nor arbitrary

Second appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Revision was allowed.

Legacy of Muslim would be divided amongst his heirs according to Islamic Law even though he had died prior to the promulgation of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1935

Share of female limited owner on termination of her limited interest was in terms of Islamic Law

Plaintiffs being legal heirs of deceased were entitled to get their shares in the legacy

Entitlement of plaintiffs was not only recognized by the law of the land but also by the Islamic Law which could not be extinguished by any mutation

Any co-sharer, in possession of joint property, should be deemed as holding the possession on behalf of all the co-sharers

No limitation would run against the co-sharer

Every successive wrong entry in the revenue record would give a fresh cause of action

No wrong entry could be legitimized with the efflux of time

No illegality or irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Plaintiff-employee remained satisfied with the entries in his service record, National Identity Card and other educational credentials for several years

High Court observed that tendency amongst government employees had developed to change date of birth closer to age of superannuation

Government employee was supposed to have knowledge of incorrect date of birth and said issue must have been agitated within a period of two years from entry into service

Plaintiff -employee, in the present case, had neither impleaded principal of concerned school for verification and correction of his educational credentials nor National Database and Registration Authority on the panel of defendants

Even service record after entry into government service had not been rectified within the mandatory period of two years

Courts below had rendered findings in violation of law, impugned judgments and decrees were set aside

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

Nothing was on record as to why plaintiff remained mum for such a long period rather a vague plea of having cause of action accrued about one month earlier had been taken

Plaintiff having admitted the contents of sale deed, was bound to challenge the same within time

Plea of plaintiff that he was not aware of the facts was not believable

Courts below had failed to appreciate evidence on record

Material illegality and irregularity had been committed by the Courts below while passing the impugned judgments and decrees, which were set aside and suit was dismissed

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

Donee to prove the validity of gift-deed failed to produce the marginal witnesses and in case of their death the secondary evidence as required by law

Neither scribe nor stamp-vendor appeared on behalf of donee

Donor was an illiterate and folk lady and no one accompanied her at the time of executing alleged gift-deed

Nothing was on record to prove time, date and place and the names of witnesses in whose presence offer was made by the donor and accepted by the donee

Claim of donee was liable to be struck down on such single score alone

Donee having failed to prove the case through any unimpeachable and convincing evidence, second appeal was dismissed with cost in circumstances.

Love and affection in case of making a gift could not be conveyed or expressed through any other person including the attorney

Sentiments of love and affection must be established on satisfactory and unimpeachable evidence

Impugned gift deed was silent with regard to consent or permission of original owner

Ownership or title of a property could not be transferred or conveyed by way of general power of attorney in favour of attorney

Attorney by playing fraud and misrepresentation made a gift of suit land in favour of her son which was against law

Donee had failed to prove the genuineness of gift deed made in his favour through any law or evidence

No legal infirmity or jurisdictional defect had been committed by the courts below

Revision was dismissed in limine.

Both the courts below had relied upon a document i.e. duty roaster of the department which was not produced by the plaintiff while appearing in the witness box

Duty roaster placed on record by the plaintiff was not a public document

Said document had not been produced/adduced by the scribe or signatory of the same or the official of the department while appearing in the court

Such type of document could not be relied upon by the courts unless same was proved according to law

Case was remanded to the Trial Court for decision afresh after providing fair opportunity of hearing to the parties

Impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below were set aside

Trial Court was directed to decide the case within a specified period.

Contention of vendor a Housing Society was that vendee had failed to pay service charges and his allotment was cancelled

Suit was decreed concurrently

Validity

Plaintiff (vendee) had paid the entire sale consideration to the defendant (vendor) in time

Burden of payment of charges shifted upon the vendor who failed to bring on record any such evidence

Subsequent vendee failed to produce any document showing his ownership over the suit plot or any receipt for payment of service charges

Impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court was comprehensive and had covered all aspects of the case

When subsequent vendee had not paid any charges possession of plot could not be handed over to him

Second appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Time would not be essence of a contract in the matter of sale of immovable property inspite of the fact that time was mentioned in the sale agreement

Both the parties had not treated time as the essence of contract at any stage

Matter, in the present case, did not come within the ambit of first part of Art.113 of Limitation Act, 1908

Defendant before invoking the bar of limitation under second part of Art.113 of Limitation Act, 1908 had to prove affirmatively that more than three years before filing of suit he had unequivocally, unconditionally and clearly refused to perform his part of contract

No direct refusal on the part of defendant was on record

Plaintiff acquired knowledge of refusal of defendant upon service of notice in another case in January/February 2005 and filed suit on 24-02-2007 which was within time

Both the courts below had exercised discretion under S.22 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 on sound reasons which was neither perverse nor arbitrary nor inequitable

Relief of specific performance was discretionary relief which would rest in judicial discretion

Both the courts below had exercised discretion on sound principles

High Court in second appeal could not interfere with that discretion unless same was contrary to law or usage having force of law

Where defendant committed breach of contract, it was not obligatory on the plaintiff to prove his willingness to perform the contract in a suit for specific performance

Second appeal being not maintainable, was dismissed in circumstances.

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

Claim of plaintiff was for compensation amount for acquisition and limitation for the same was less than the period provided for a suit for declaration

Plaintiff had instituted suit just to avoid limitation provided for getting reference proceedings initiated

Present suit was not only incompetent but was also time barred

Plaintiff had only remedy to challenge the subject measurement of land before the Referee Court and nowhere else

Findings recorded by the courts below were result of mis-reading of evidence as well as ill-appreciation of relevant laws

Impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below were set aside

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

Provisions of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 would not apply to the property if it was established that the same was purchased or gifted property

Suit of plaintiffs was confined only to correction of wrong entries

Civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the present suit

Both the courts below had properly examined the material available before them in true perspective

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Marginal witnesses of a document were required to be produced not only to identify the signatures of executant but also to prove that executant had put his signatures in their presence

No reason existed for the plaintiff to deprive the respondent lady of her sole source of income and livelihood and her other two daughters and disinherit them from her sole legacy

Ingredients of gift were lacking in the present case

Defendant being beneficiary of gift deed was required to prove the same through cogent and reliable evidence but she had failed to do so

Both the courts below had properly appreciated the material available on record in true sense and passed well reasoned judgments

Revision was dis-missed in circumstances.

Authority had allotted other plots on the basis of 'draw' as well as on the basis of judgment of High Court after cancellation of allotment of plot of plaintiff

Authority was bound to honour its commitment when plaintiff was held entitled for allotment of plot

Authority was bound to allot an alternate plot to the plaintiff if plot in question was already allotted to another allottee

State functionaries were bound to make their decision honestly, judiciously and in accordance with law

Authority was bound to run their affairs fairly to maintain confidence of public

Authority, in the present case, had not only violated the relevant rules but had made certain concessions to their blue eyed person

No illegality or infirmity had been pointed out by the Authority in the impugned judgments passed by the courts below

Question of facts had thoroughly been determined by the Appellate Court which could not be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction by the High Court unless judgments passed were perverse or against the material available on record

Revision was dismissed with costs in circumstances.

Defendants were bound to prove exchange of land as they had taken the shelter of the same to ward off right of pre-emption

Patwari halqa had neither produced 'Fard' of ownership of plaintiff nor impugned mutation had been brought on record

Right of pre-emption was substantive right and same should not be defeated by technicalities

Evidence got recorded by both the parties was deficient to reach on just conclusion

For just decision of the case it was necessary to call patwari halqa as court witness to submit relevant mutations, Fard Jamabandi of ownership of both the parties and price of land adjacent to the suit land sold out in near past

Revision was accepted and impugned judgments and decrees of both the courts below were set aside and case was remanded to the Trial Court with the direction to examine patwari halqa as court witness and decide the case afresh.

Plaintiffs filed suit seeking declaration to the effect that they were owners of suit property and inheritance mutation was against the law

Suit was decreed concurrently

Validity

Evidence with regard to existence of fact that at the time of death of the deceased, the only survivor was her brother (predecessor of plaintiffs) and predecessor of defendants died in her life time, was in shape of oral evidence and oral evidence had been produced from both the sides

Documentary evidence was required in support of claim of plaintiffs and documentary evidence regarding death entries produced by the plaintiffs had been produced in additional evidence and that too had been got exhibited in the statement of counsel of the plaintiffs-respondents

Certified copies of the same were not per se admissible in evidence as the same had been issued by the Secretary, Union Council and those did not qualify to be the certified copies of the record issued in accordance with the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Production and attaching evidentiary value to such evidence, the summoning of original record as well as the Record Keeper was necessary and such documentary evidence had little value

When defence witness appeared and made statement with regard to the death entries of the deceased, his evidence was sufficient to find that those documents did not match with the original record available in the Union Council

Certificate of death entry was bogus and the Appellate Court disbelieved the same

Copies of mutations were not direct evidence with regard to determination of date of death of deceased

Findings recorded by both the courts below that deceased died after the death of predecessor of defendants-petitioners were based upon no evidence and the same were not sustainable under the law

Revision was accepted and impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below were set aside.

Contention of defendants was that statements of witnesses of both the parties had been recorded on solemn affirmation but not on oath

Suit was decreed concurrently

Validity

When no prejudice had been highlighted by recording statements of witnesses of both the parties on solemn affirmation, then deviation from Oaths Act, 1873 could not be pressed

Non-appearance of plaintiff at the time of affirmative evidence and reserving his right to appear in affirmative as well as rebuttal evidence after recording of evidence of defendant was fatal

Statement of plaintiff recorded after the statement of defendants, reserved at the time of affirmative evidence, was not fatal in the present case

Concurrent findings of fact with regard to superior of plaintiff were recorded by the courts below

High Court could not interfere in the findings recorded on factual controversies between the parties

Plaintiff had proved her case pleaded by her

Limitation for filing pre-emption suit under Section 30 of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 was one year from the date of attestation of mutation

Day of attestation of mutation was excluded from counting the period of one year

Mutation was attested on 6-11-1973 and suit was filed on 6-11-1974 which was within time

Revision was not maintainable which was dismissed in circumstances.

Consumer had challenged the validity and correctness of detection bill which was issued on the basis of laboratory report

Meter was checked in presence of consumer and he was charged for aggregate units corresponding to previous months for consumption as per Electricity Rules due to theft of energy

Dispute was not an extraneous one but same pertained to theft of energy committed by the plaintiff

Jurisdiction of Meter Inspector was confined to the controversy relating to the matters falling under S. 26 (6) of Electricity Act, 1910 when same were with regard to the correctness of meter, maximum demand indicator or other measuring apparatus

Dispute for consumption of electricity should be referred to the Electric Inspector

Dispute between the parties was with regard to the defect caused in the meter which was detected by the test of laboratory

Provisions of S. 26(6) of Electricity Act, 1910 was attracted and civil court was out of jurisdiction to give findings on the matter which was determinable by the Electric Inspector

Both the courts below exercised jurisdiction not vested in them and impugned judgments were without jurisdiction

Impugned judgments passed by both the courts below were set aside and plaint was returned to the plaintiff to seek remedy from proper forum

Revision was accepted in circumstances.

Contention of plaintiff was that he was owner of disputed property on the basis of agreement to sell and sale deed in favour of defendant was against law and facts

Suit was decreed concurrently

Validity

Plaintiff could not establish that possession of suit property was handed over to him at the time of execution of agreement to sell

No finding with regard to possession of plaintiff over the suit property was rendered by the courts below

Plaintiff had sought declaration of title on the basis of agreement to sell which did not create any right or interest in his favour

Suit for declaration on the basis of agreement to sell was not maintainable

Plaintiff was required to have filed suit for specific performance of agreement to sell

Protection provided in S. 53-A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was not available in the present case

Defendant had failed to prove the conditions provided in S. 53-A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Plaintiff had not sought the relief for specific performance of agreement to sell in the suit

Defendant was in possession on the suit property prior to the attestation of sale deed in his favour

Plaintiff had failed to prove that sale deed was got attested through coercion, influence or ulterior motive

Valid sale deed had been attested in favour of defendant

Findings of both the courts below were based on erroneous considerations and same were liable to be set aside

Judgments and decrees of both the courts below were set aside and suit was dismissed

Revision was accepted in circumstances.

Claim of plaintiffs was based upon sale-deed execution and presentation of which for registration had not been denied by the defendants

Sale-deed being a registered document had presumption of truth

Oral evidence could not take preference over the documentary evidence

Said sale-deed had not been challenged or got set aside by the defendants from any forum

Disputed house was transferred in favour of plaintiffs in the record of Cantonment Board

Act which was performed in the ordinary course of business had presumption of correctness

Defendants had decision of Jirga in their favour but same had no weight as neither scribe nor members of said Jirga appeared before the court to prove said document

Presence of parties had not been marked in the decision of Jirga nor their signatures appeared on the same

Defendants had not produced anybody who was conversant with the hand writing or signatures of members of Jirga to prove said document

Exhibition of document was one thing and its proof was another

Exhibition of document did not mean that same stood proved rather the party relying upon such document was supposed to prove the same in accordance with law

Suit was filed after 9 years and same was not barred by time

Defendants had not raised plea of adverse possession in their written statement

Period of 12 years had been provided for such suit which would start from the date when the possession of plaintiffs had become adverse to the defendants

Both the courts below had properly and lawfully appreciated the evidence available on record

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Defendants had failed to produce any sale agreement, payment receipt or any documentary proof with regard to payment of sale consideration

No witness of sale transaction had been produced by the defendants to prove that suit property was sold to them

Plaintiffs had produced documentary proof with regard to their ownership in the suit premises whereas the claim of defendants was based on oral assertion

Oral evidence/assertions had no value in presence of documentary evidence

Mere possession or occupation of disputed property would not constitute a legal right to retain the same for indefinite period

Possession or occupation could not sustain the claim to title to the property in possession or occupation

Possession itself could not be equated to that of legal right

Defendants had no locus standi with regard to their claims and their possession on the suit property was illegal

No illegality or infirmity had been pointed out in the impugned orders

Concurrent findings recorded by the courts below could not be disturbed unless same were against the evidence on record

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Nothing was on record to prove that donor was in senses and he was in a position to understand each and everything with regard to execution of gift deed when he was produced before the Sub-Registrar

Son of donor had been deprived through the impugned gift deed

Nothing had been brought on record to establish as to why donor had ignored his only son from his entire property which had been gifted to his nephew

Non-existence of such facts created doubt with regard to execution of impugned gift deed

Gift deed would not be valid if same was executed without the consent of some of legal heirs through which they had been deprived

Sub-Registrar was bound to mention the condition of donor in his writing but same had not been done

No explanation had been brought on record through the contents of gift deed, writing of Sub-registrar or even through evidence that why the donor preferred his nephew for gift of his property

Nothing was on record that donor was unhappy or annoyed with his son and excluded him from inheritance of his whole property

Execution of gift deed in such circumstances was against ordinary human conduct

Beneficiary of gift deed had failed to prove its voluntary execution

Appendage of thumb impression of donor on gift deed without independent proof of factum of the same in favour of donee would not be sufficient to establish that property had validly been gifted out of free-will

Absence of such reasons for making gift had made doubtful the genuineness of transaction which was void

Defendant had failed to prove that impugned gift deed was executed with free consent of donor

Impugned gift was null and void over the rights of plaintiff

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Suit seeking declaration to the effect that plaintiff had cleared all his outstanding arrears to the defendant/ electricity company and nothing was due from him anymore

Suit was decreed concurrently

Validity

Perusal of record revealed that single phase meter used for residential purpose could not consume so much units in one month as was shown by the defendant in the plaintiff's bill for a certain month

Possibility of changing or tampering with meter on part of plaintiff could not be inferred as meter was installed outside the home of the plaintiff at a distance

Defendant electricity company also kept mum about the meter of the plaintiff that had become untraced

No illegality having been found in orders of courts below

Revision was dismissed.

Suit for recovery of maintenance, dower and a certain amount of money which was stipulated in the Nikkahnama as an amount that husband was to pay the wife in case he turned her out of the house or pronounced divorce upon her

Suit was decreed concurrently

Contention of the husband (petitioner) was that condition stipulating payment of certain amount to wife in case he turned her out of the house or divorced in the Nikkahnama was against the basic principles of law and could not be enforced by the Family Court

Validity

Said amount was neither a part of dower nor amounted to personal property of wife , therefore, claim in such regard did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Family Court

Family Court could not adjudicate on the matter as it was purely of a civil nature and fell within the jurisdiction of the civil court

Decree of the Family Court to such extent was not sustainable and was set aside

Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly.