| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 400 2025 SLD 400 = 2025 CLC 140 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No.77 of 2010, decided on 31st March, 2023.
Before Shahid Bilal Hassan, J
Muhammad Shahzad Shaukat and Taha Shaukat for Petitioner. Malik Noor Muhammad Awan, Ejaz Khalid Khan and Saima Hanif for
Respondents Nos.1 to 3. Shahzad Mahmood Butt for
Respondent No.4(a). Mirza Hafeez ur Rehman and Mian Ejaz Latif for
Respondents Nos.4(c to e). Muhammad Mahmood Chaudhry and Muhammad Zeeshan for
Respondent No.4(ii). Azmat Ullah Chaudhry for
Respondent No.4(vi to viii).
Civil Revision No.77 of 2010, decided on 31st March, 2023.
Before Shahid Bilal Hassan, J
Muhammad Shahzad Shaukat and Taha Shaukat for Petitioner. Malik Noor Muhammad Awan, Ejaz Khalid Khan and Saima Hanif for
Respondents Nos.1 to 3. Shahzad Mahmood Butt for
Respondent No.4(a). Mirza Hafeez ur Rehman and Mian Ejaz Latif for
Respondents Nos.4(c to e). Muhammad Mahmood Chaudhry and Muhammad Zeeshan for
Respondent No.4(ii). Azmat Ullah Chaudhry for
Respondent No.4(vi to viii).
ABDUL KARIM---Petitioner
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984
Section: 19,79,190(g)
Law: Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967
Section: XVII,42
(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)-------Arts.79 & 129(g)---Gift made by attorney---Scope and proof---Document lacked clear clause for gifting suit property to the petitioner---Attorney cannot gift property without principal's intentions and directions to gift the property--Document was not proved as per the mandate of Art.79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 as a second marginal witness was not brought into the witness box---Adverse presumption arises against petitioner as per the mandate of Art.129(g) of Qanun-eShahadat, 1984---Petitioner could not provide evidence of when, where and in whose presence donor made an offer to gift property in dispute---Necessary to plead and prove these ingredients, especially when other legal heirs are being deprived of inheritance rights in deceased's estate.Fida Muhammad v. Pir Muhammad Khan (deceased) through Legal Heirs and others PLD 1985 SC 341; Mst. Naila Kausar and another v. Sardar Muhammad Bakhsh and others 2016 SCMR 1781; Faqir Ali and others v. Sakina Bibi and others PLD 2022 SC 85 and Fareed and others v. Muhammad Tufail and another 2018 SCMR 139 ref.(b) Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)-------S.42---Mutation---Scope and effect---Mutation per se is not a deed of title and is merely indicative of some previous oral transaction between the parties; so, whenever any mutation is challenged burden squarely lies upon the beneficiary of such mutation to prove not only the mutation but also the original transaction.(c) Appeal-------Judgment of Trial Court and Appellate Court---Inconsistency in findings--Principle---In case of such inconsistency findings of Appellate Court must be given preference in the absence of any cogent reason to the contrary.Date of hearing: 31st March, 2023.JUDGMENTSHAHID BILAL HASSAN, J.----Succinctly, Umar Din, father of the petitioner owned considerable property inclusive of properties in dispute i.e. land measuring 127-Kanals and 14-Marlas, situated in Chak No.125-GB and land measuring 162Kanals 03-Marlas located in Chak No.119-GB, Tehsil Jaranwala District Faisalabad; that Umar Din executed a registered power of attorney…
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