| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 2857 2024 SLD 2857 2024 CLC 181 |
Peshawar High Court, D.I. Khan Bench
Civil Revision No.54-D of 2020 and C.M. No.59-D of 2020, decided on 23rd February, 2023.Date of hearing: 23rd February, 2023.
Before Muhammad Faheem Wali, J
Rustam Khan Kundi for Petitioner. Ahmad Ali and Miss Shumaila Awan for
Respondents.
Civil Revision No.54-D of 2020 and C.M. No.59-D of 2020, decided on 23rd February, 2023.Date of hearing: 23rd February, 2023.
Before Muhammad Faheem Wali, J
Rustam Khan Kundi for Petitioner. Ahmad Ali and Miss Shumaila Awan for
Respondents.
Syed IQBAL HUSSAIN SHAH----Petitioner
VERSUS
Mst. KALSOOM BIBI through Legal Heirs and others----Respondents
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 42,39,54
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42, 39 & 54---Suit for declaration, cancellation of document and permanent injunction---Parda Nasheen / illiterate lady, rights of---Transaction relating to such women---Requirements---Principle of caution---Scope---Beneficiary, responsibility of---Mutation was recorded by virtue of which all sisters sold out their shares to the their brother---Plaintiff (lady/sister)sought cancellation of mutation to the extent of transfer of her share on the ground that neither she sold the same nor did she appear before any Revenue Official nor impressed her thumb-impression in said regard---In the first round of litigation, the matter was remanded to the Appellate Court for fresh decision of appeal having been filed by the defendant / brother, which appeal was dismissed---Validity---Evidence was silent with regard to knowledge of the respondent about nature of transaction and consequences thereof or whether she had any independent advice particularly when she was married woman---Her husband was, admittedly, not present at the time of execution of the mutation-in-question---Payment of sale-consideration was not proved as there were contradictions in the evidence adduced by the petitioner and that of his witness whom he (petitioner) asserted to have handed over the amount for payment to the respondent---Another witness presented by the petitioner only referred to the presence of four sisters out of total five, hence the presence and actual representation of respondent could not be established through evidence---There was also contradiction regarding presence of and payment to the respondent, in statements of Halqa Patwari and Ahle-Commission appointed for recording statements of Parda Nasheen ladies---Even two witnesses of the petitioner /defendant unanimously admitted that the petitioner used to pay share of crops to the respondent till institution of the suit---Said defects cast doubt on the transactions attributed to the respondent / plaintiff---In our male dominated society where the female legal heirs have been consistently deprived of their 'sharai' shares in inheritance , the principle of caution in protecting theβ¦
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