Case Details

Citation(s)
2019 SLG 95 2019 SLD 95 2019 PLJ 34
Supreme Court of Pakistan
C.A. No. 175-P of 2011, decision & hearing Dated: 15.08.2018. (On appeal against the judgment Dated 14.11.2011 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar passed in C.R. No. 350/2010).
QAZI FAEZ ISA, JUSTICE YAHYA AFRIDI, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mr. Ghulam Nabi, ASC and Mr. M Ajmal Khan, AOR. (absent)
Respondent(s) by: Mr. Khalid Khan, ASC Nemo

WALI MUHARNMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER

VS

MST. AMINA AND OTHERS

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 39

Law: Land Revenue Act, 1967 (XVII of 1967)

Section: 42(7)

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 117,118

Specific Relief Act, 1877 (I of 1877)-- ----S. 39--Suit for cancellation of gift-deed--Appeal dismissed--Concurrent findings--Revisional jurisdiction--Non-appearance of identification witness--Non submission of signed gift document--Question of--Whether suit merited dismissal or whether High Court had correctly exercised its revisional jurisdiction--Establishment of gift--Challenge to--Appellants had completely failed to establish gift in their favour--It was not established that person presented before revenue officer, whose statement be recorded, was actually Mst. Pari--It was not established that Mst. Pari understood what she was doing and consequences of her actions nor that she did not do so under compulsion, undue influence or advantage--Brothers deprived their sisters of their share in property left by their mother and brothers perpetuated this injustice for about two decades which was finally corrected by learned Judge of High Court whose we affirm--Appeal was dismissed. Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (10 of 1984)-- ----Arts. 117, 118, Burden of proof--Material irregularity--Appellate Court perpetuated error and assumed that Mst. Pari had gifted her property without this having been established through evidence--Subordinate Courts failed to appreciate that burden of proving gift lay on appellants who had completely failed to discharge it--Under such circumstances High Court had rightly exercised its revisional jurisdiction to correct material irregularity committed by Subordinate Courts. Land Revenue Act, 1967 (XVII of 1967)-- ----S. 42(7)--Requirement of law--Interested witness--Non-producing of mutations register--Sub section (7) of Section 42 of Land Revenue Act, 1967 requires that person from whom property is being acquired is to be identified by, "two respectable persons, preferably from Lambardars or members of Union Committee, Town Committee or Union Council concerned, whose signatures or thumb-impressions shall be obtained by Revenue Officer"--This was not done--Register of mutations was not produced, nor verified copies therefrom exhibited--Only Muhammad Zaman., who was an interested witness, identified Mst. Pari and also testified to making of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492