| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2023 SLG 922 2023 SLD 922 2023 MLD 665 |
Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi
C. R. No. 495-D of 2013, decided on 15th July, 2022. Date of hearing: 20th June, 2022.
Before Mirza Viqas Rauf, J
Malik M. Kabir for Petitioners. Malik Fateh Khan Awan for
Respondent.
C. R. No. 495-D of 2013, decided on 15th July, 2022. Date of hearing: 20th June, 2022.
Before Mirza Viqas Rauf, J
Malik M. Kabir for Petitioners. Malik Fateh Khan Awan for
Respondent.
HAYAT (DECEASED) through L.Rs---Petitioners
VERSUS
Mst. FATEH KHATOON-----Respondent
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 42,54
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 115
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42, 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115---Suit for declaration and injunction--- Gift mutation--- Minor donor--- Void instrument---Concurrent findings of two Courts below---Respondent/ plaintiff assailed mutation of gift in favour of predecessor-in-interest of petitioners/defendants---Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court decreed the suit and appeal respectively in favour of respondent/plaintiff---Validity---Respondent/plaintiff was minor at the time of attestation of gift mutation, which was sanctioned on the basis of statement of a lady who was neither her guardian nor was authorized to enter into such transaction on behalf of respondent/plaintiff---Such gift mutation was a void instrument---Serious challenge existed to validity of gift mutation, so petitioners/defendants as beneficiaries of the same were obliged to prove its genuineness by first pleading necessary details of gift transaction followed by unimpeachable evidence---Petitioners/ defendants failed to discharge their onus of proof---Petitioners/ defendants failed to point out any misreading and non-reading of evidence---Revisional jurisdiction was not meant to unearth another possible view from the evidence, contra to the findings rendered by two Courts of competent jurisdiction---Revisional jurisdiction was to be exercised, while keeping in view principles enshrined in S. 115, C.P.C.---High Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings as there was no illegality or material irregularity crept up on the record nor was pointed out by petitioners/defendants---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances. Abdul Karim v. Haji Noor Badshah 2012 SCMR 212; Eada Khan v. Mst. Ghanwar and others 2004 SCMR 1524; Muhammad and 9 others v. Hasham Ali PLD 2003 SC 271 and Mst. Saeeda Akhtar Sadiq through Special Attorney v. Tauqir Akhtar 2006 CLC 1430 ref. Yar Muhammad Khan and others v. Sajjad Abbas and others 2021 SCMR 1401; Sultan v. Muhammad Hussain 2006 MLD 659; Faqir Ali and others v. Sakina Bibi and others PLD 2022 SC 85; Ghulam Qadir and others v. Sh. Abdul Wasdood and others PLD 2016 SC 712; Mst. Zarsheda v. Nobat Khan PLD 2022 SC 21 and Muhammad…
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