| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2015 SLG 2300 2015 SLD 2300 2015 CLC 822 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 267 of 2005, decided on 22nd January,2014. DATE of hearing: 3rd December, 2013
ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR, J
S.M. Tayyab for Petitioner. Allah Bakhsh Gondal for
Respondents
Civil Revision No. 267 of 2005, decided on 22nd January,2014. DATE of hearing: 3rd December, 2013
ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR, J
S.M. Tayyab for Petitioner. Allah Bakhsh Gondal for
Respondents
SADAR ABBASvsPROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others
Law:
Section:
(a) Islamic law--- ----Gift---Disentitling legal heirs---Effect---Concurrent findings of fact by two courts below---Plaintiff claimed to be owner in possession of suit land on the basis of gift executed in his favour by his father and sought direction to revenue authorities for excluding names of defendants, who were his step sisters---Both the Courts below concurrently dismissed suit and appeal filed by plaintiff---Validity---Alleged oral gift by predecessor-in-interest of parties in favour of plaintiff was an attempt to deprive his real daughters from their expected legal share in his inheritance---Ill-will of predecessor-in-interest of parties was reflected in contents of agreement wherein it was scribed that he had no male or female descendent (word female later on was struck off) except plaintiff as real son---Even in opening statement of testimony of predecessor-in-interest of parties, it was stated that he did not intend to give even a single Marla from suit land to any one except plaintiff---Object of alleged oral gift was to exclude daughters from heirship---Predecessor-in-interest of parties was suffering from prolonged ailment, although there was no direct or strong evidence to the effect that he was mentally disordered person yet it was on record that his son-in-law used to take him to mental hospital for treatment of his mental faculties---Predecessor-in-interest of parties admitted that he had been on bed for last about 8-9 years, however declined to disclose nature of ailment---Even in contents of alleged agreement predecessor-in-interest of parties referred to his constant ailment as well as uncertainty of life---Predecessor-in-interest of parties had no independent advice at the time of alleged oral gift in favour of plaintiff to disinherit his four daughters---Alleged transaction of oral gift in favour of plaintiff were sham and void---No gift could be created or pleaded if sole object for creation whereof was to deprive heirs to inherit property as per their shares contemplated by the Holy Quran. Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst.Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi PLD 1990 SC 1; Mukhtar Ahmad v. Mst.Rasheeda Bibi and another 2003 SCMR 1664; Raja Muhammad Yasin…