| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 3123 2022 SLD 3123 2022 YLR 1531 |
Sindh High Court
R.A. No. 100 of 2015, decided on 22nd September, 2020.
SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, J
Applicant No.2 present. Abdul Sattar Gujjal for
Respondents Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5. S. Hassan Abidi for K.M.C. Aqil Zaidi for
Respondent No.7.
R.A. No. 100 of 2015, decided on 22nd September, 2020.
SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, J
Applicant No.2 present. Abdul Sattar Gujjal for
Respondents Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5. S. Hassan Abidi for K.M.C. Aqil Zaidi for
Respondent No.7.
Mrs. NASIRA KHALIQUE and 7 others
VS
Mst. RABIA SHARIF through L.Rs.
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 42
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 115
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 42---Suit for declaration---Gift mutation---Scope---Plaintiffs assailed alleged transfer of suit property in favour of the respondents’ predecessor by their father---Property in question was transferred on the basis of contents of gift shown in Nikahnama executed in 1954, however, same got materialized (mutation) in the year 1982---Burden was upon the beneficiaries not only to prove the claimed gift but also validity thereof---Undeniably the ownership of suit property was with father of the plaintiffs, who was brother of the husband of claimed donee---No exception to position that Nikahnama was a document between bride and bridegroom---Mere referral to the signature of a person in capacity of a witness did not bind him to any term agreed or mentioned in the Nikahnama---Authorities before relying on such a document for transferring title were required to have served notice upon such person---Such illegal order passed by the authorities did not come in way of the plaintiffs particularly when the donor himself had never appeared before the authorities for confirming the claimed gift---Revision application was allowed and the suit was decreed, in circumstances. 2014 SCMR 914; 2015 CLR 111; 2010 SCMR 121; 2003 MLD 131; 2011 SCMR 222; 2006 YLR 1783; 2006 YLR 1090 and PLD 2015 Kar. 216 ref. Muhammad Sarwar v. Mumtaz Bibi 2020 SCMR 276 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Civil revision---Concurrent findings---Scope---Normally High Court in revisional jurisdiction is slow in interfering in concurrent findings of two courts below but where there is prima facie misreading as well departure from settled principles of law High Court is always competent to disturb such concurrent findings. ORDER SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, JUSTICE:---.--- Applicant has preferred this revision application against judgment and decree dated 01.09.2015 passed in Civil Appeal No.17/2013 and judgment and decree dated 12.12.2012 passed by the trial court in Civil Suit No.1159/2009. 2. Brief facts of the case are that applicants claim to be legal heirs of deceased Muhammad Khalique Khan son of Hafiz Muhammad Saeed who died at Karachi on…
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