| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 420 2022 SLD 420 2022 YLR 147 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 337-D of 2004, heard on 12-10-2021. hearing date: 12-10-2021.
AHMAD NADEEM ARSHAD, JUSTICE
Sajjad Hussain Tangra for
Respondents.
Civil Revision No. 337-D of 2004, heard on 12-10-2021. hearing date: 12-10-2021.
AHMAD NADEEM ARSHAD, JUSTICE
Sajjad Hussain Tangra for
Respondents.
MST. SHARIFAN MAI (DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS. AND OTHErs
VS
KHUDA BAKHSH AND OTHERS
Law: Transfer of Property Act, 1882
Section: 123
(a) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)--- ----S. 123---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 17 79---Suit for declaration---Suit property was allegedly given by deceased to his wife on basis of acknowledgement deed of dower in his life time---Tamleeknama / plaintiff in possession / defendants (sons and daughters of deceased’s brothers/sisters) contended that deceased was a cancer patient/suffering from Marz-ul-Mout at the time of acknowledgement deed---Suit was decreed but appeal was allowed---Validity/defendants, in cross-examination, could not bring on record anything contrary to deposition of petitioner’s witnesses---Evidence of scribe of acknowledgement deed and notary public/Advocate was relevant---Both witnesses were independent and had no interest with the plaintiff or suit property---Notary public deposed that he verified the said deed; that deed bore his seal and signature; that he read-over the document to deceased; that deceased himself appeared being physically fit/healthy; that he incorporated the deed in his register, pasted copy of identity card of deceased; that he took thumb impressions of two ladies and the deceased, took signatures of witnesses---Scribe deposed as witness and identified the thumb impression of the deceased---Defence witness was not reliable, was interested witness and his deposition could not be relied upon failed to prove that the deceased was cancer patient and was suffering from Marz-ul-Mout at the time of execution of the documents and died during that period---Evidence of defendants was hearsay not having source of direct knowledge---Deceased had two wives and died issueless---Deceased equally distributed 4/4/ kanal amongst his two wives out of his ownership of land measuring 11 kanals 14 marlas did not plead that the said deed was anti-dated/prepared after the demise of deceased---Appellate Court had erred in law while allowing the appeal---Revision petition was accepted accordingly. (b) Islamic law--- ----Dower---Hiba-bil-ewaz---Nature and scope--- Ordinarily, in transfer of immoveable property by a Muslim husband to his wife in lieu of dower, there were two distinct gifts, one by each party to the other---Husband…
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