| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1959 SLG 4336 = 1959 SLD 4336 = 1959 PLD 932 |
West Pakistan Lahore
Regular First Appeal No. 6 of 1954, decided on 17th June 1959.
Presented By: B. Z. Kaikaus and Bashir Ahmad, JJ
Muhammad Akram for Appellant.
Regular First Appeal No. 6 of 1954, decided on 17th June 1959.
Presented By: B. Z. Kaikaus and Bashir Ahmad, JJ
Muhammad Akram for Appellant.
NUR MUHAMMAD-Defendant---Appellant
VERSUS
Mst. KARIM BIBI-Plaintiff---Respondent
Law: Registration Act (XVI of 1908)
Section: 58,59,60(2),35
Gift-Donor, illiterate woman-Entitled to protection as pardanashin though not observing purdah----Donee in position of influence-Gift set aside-Onus on donee to show that gift was not result of influence. The rule relating to pardanashin woman is a rule by which the law gives protection to those who by presumption are not fully able to take care of their interests. Every illiterate woman, whether she is pardanashin or not, could have this protection unless circumstances are brought on the record to show that she was of an exceptional character, well able to manage her affairs. The donee was in a position to influence the donor. The father of the parties had died only about a month and a half before the deed was executed and it can well be imagined that the donor had been deeply affected by that death. The donee was her elder brother. The donor stated in her deposition as a witness that she was afraid of him. But even if she was not afraid, she was liable to be influenced by him on account of the affection she bore him and' on account of the attendant circumstances. Then there is the fact that there was nobody to advise her. Her relations with her husband may or may not have been strained, but admittedly he was not consulted. In fact, it is not the case of the donor that any person was consulted. The Court does not allow those who hold a position of authority or influence to abuse that position. If a person who is in a position of authority or influence gains an advantage, it is for him to satisfy the Court that the act of gift was the result of the free exercise of will by the donor and that the gift was made after a full appreciation of its effect. Here the donor is admittedly an impecunious person. Her husband is only a Chowkidar. She has four children. She has given away the whole of the property which she inherited from her father, property which, considering her position in life, is very valuable to her. A brother with a proper sense of fairness and justice would not have accepted a gift in these circumstances at all, but, in any case, he should have asked her to consider the matter fully and to have independent advice before she took the…