Case Details

Citation(s)
1965 SLG 4640 = 1965 SLD 4640 = 1965 PLD 200
West Pakistan Lahore
Regular Second Appeal No. 127 of 1963, decided on 11th November 1964.  
Presented By: Anwarul Haq, J
  M. A. Khadim for Petitioners.   Malik Gul Nawaz Ahmad for
Respondent.

GHULAM QADIR AND OTHERS-----Defendants----Appellants  

VERSUS

  GHULAM HUSSAIN----Plaintiff-----Respondent

Law: Contract Act (IX of 1872)

Section: 17(3),19

Law: Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)

Section: 52,2

Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 17 (3) & 19-Gift-Not a contract-Principles of S. 19 may nevertheless be applicable even to gifts-Allegation that promise was made without intention of performing it not established-Mere failure to perform Promise Not fraud.   Shamshad Ali Shah and others v. Syed Hassan Shah and others P L D 1964 S C 143 ref.   Muhammadan Law----Gift-Invalid condition attached to gift' Gift to be treated as without any condition-Gift with condition that donees would marry their sister (an adult) to donor in lieu of land gifted-Condition being opposed to public policy and good conscience, held, unenforceable Gift allowed to take effect notwithstanding such condition.   Mulla's Muhammadan Law, 1961 Edn., S. 164 ref.   Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), Ss. 52 & 2--- Doctrine of lis pendens - Not applicable to any rule of Muhammadan Law-Muslim donor subsequently filing suit for resuming gift-Donee, in absence of order of Court to contrary, competent to alienate gifted property during pendency of suit- Mulla Muhammadan Law, 1961 Edn., S. 167(4).   Bismillah Begum and others v. Tahsin Ali Khan A I R 1930 All. 462 and Ahmad Hussain alias Chhotu Mian v. Kallu Mian Sajhi Firm Sohan Mian Ulfat Mian 117 I C 97 held not applicable.   Mulla's "Muhammadan Law", S. 167 ref.   Dates of hearing: 8th June and 5th and 19th October 1964.   JUDGMENT   This Second Appeal is by the defendants and arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff respondent Ghulam Hussain for a declaration that the gift of the land in dispute made by him in favour of the present appellants by means of a registered deed dated the 13th of November 1957 was invalid and not binding on him as it had been obtained by fraud. He alleged that he was the transferee of considerable land under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, that the defendants-appellants represented to him that he should marry so that he would get an heir for his property, and they offered the hand of their widowed sister Mst. Sharifan if he were to make a gift to them of some killas of his land. He agreed and gifted the land in dispute to them by…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register