| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1970 SLG 3211 1970 SLD 3211 = 1970 PLD 654 |
Lahore High Court
Regular Second Appeal No. 525 of 1965, decided on 4th November 1969.
Presented By: Qadeeruddin Ahmed, C J
Mian Muhammad Shafi assisted by Mian Ata-ul-Haq for Appellant. Shahzad Jahangir for
Respondent.
Regular Second Appeal No. 525 of 1965, decided on 4th November 1969.
Presented By: Qadeeruddin Ahmed, C J
Mian Muhammad Shafi assisted by Mian Ata-ul-Haq for Appellant. Shahzad Jahangir for
Respondent.
ALTAF MAHMOOD-Plaintiff-Appellant
VERSUS
Mst. FAZAL-UN-NISA alias BILQIS INSARI --Defendant-Respondent
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 100
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 100----Second appeal----Question of law---Benami transaction---Legal in ference with respect to a question of law arising from a set of facts (such as whether facts found do or do not constitute a legal transaction, say, of mortgage)---A question of law---Determination of whether a particular transaction was benami---Intention, deciding factor----Real owner desiring to remain beneficiary and allowing ostensible owner to act as trustee--- Such transaction benami---Findings of lower Courts, on such points, held, open to Second Appeal. A legal inference with respect to a question of law arising from a set of facts is a question of law. It depends upon the object with which inferences are drawn in a case as to whether those inferences are inferences of law or of fact. If the object of the process is to infer the existence of a fact by construing and interpreting a set of other facts, then the inference is of fact, but if the object is to draw a legal inference from a set of facts then such an inference is an inference of law. It is true that with the determination of the nature of inten tion it is possible directly to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the nature of the transaction was one or the other, but let it not be forgotten that conclusions, which are drawn about the inten tion, are drawn with a view to find out whether the intention fits into one type of transaction or another. While determining cases in which the object is to determine whether a transaction was of benami nature or not, one undoubt edly follows a process of thought for discovering the intention of the party who made the transactions. The basic document of title is rarely of any help in benami transactions because as pointed out in some precedents the idea irrespective of any motive m making a benami transaction is to conceal the reality. The investigation made for the discovery of the reality may lead to the conclusion that either the intention was to make a gift or to create a quasi-trust. If it is found that there was a gift then that puts an end to the controversy about the benami character of the transaction, because then the ostensible…