| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1975 SLG 3269 = 1975 SLD 3269 = 1975 PLD 979 |
Court of Special Judge, Karachi
Suit No. 221 of 1969, decided on 17th May 1974.
Presented By: Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, J
Benami Transactions in India and Pakistan by K. A. A. Qamruddin pp. 86-87 and Imambandi Begum v. Kumelshwari Pershad 1886 L R 13 1 A 160 ref. A. A. Zari with S. A. Awan for Plaintiffs. Muzaffar Ali Khan for Defendants.
Suit No. 221 of 1969, decided on 17th May 1974.
Presented By: Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, J
Benami Transactions in India and Pakistan by K. A. A. Qamruddin pp. 86-87 and Imambandi Begum v. Kumelshwari Pershad 1886 L R 13 1 A 160 ref. A. A. Zari with S. A. Awan for Plaintiffs. Muzaffar Ali Khan for Defendants.
MOHAMMED BIBI AND 2 OTHERS-PLAINTIFFS -
VERSUS
ABDUL GHANI AND 2 OTHERS-DEFENDANTS
Law: Evidence Act (I of 1872)
Section: 38, 84, 41
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 13
(a) Domicile- -.- Law relating to-Domicile of choice-Animus mamendi-Indecia of residential intention-Domicile of choice is retained until abandon ment i.e. giving up both residence and intention to reside-Woman on marriage acquires domicile of her husband. According to Dicey domicile of choice is acquired by every independent person by obtaining combination of residence (factum) and intention of permanent or indefinite residence (animus mamendi) but not otherwise. The domicile of any person is the place or the country which is considered by law to be his permanent home. It is a mixed question of law and fact or rather inference drawn by law from certain facts though in general facts which constitute "home" are the same facts from which law infers that it is domicile. Domicile is acquired, except where the law may provide otherwise as in case of minors and a wife, where a person resides at a place with the intention of residence and is retained by having so resided there with the intention of residence (animus mamendi), though in fact he may no longer reside there. With respect to the evidence necessary to establish the animus mamendi it is impossible to lay down any positive rules. Accord ing to Turner L. J., in an old English case:- "Courts of justice must necessarily draw their conclusions from all the circumstances of each case and each case must vary from its circumstances) and, moreover, in one, a fact may be of the greatest importance but in another, the same fact may be so qualified as to be of little weight." According to Dicey since a domicile consists of and is constituted by resi dence and due animus mamendi, "any fact from which it may be inferred either that `D' resides or has the intention of indefinite residence within a particular country, is, as far as it goes, evidence that" 'D' is domiciled there. The facts relevant for determination of animus mamendi, according to Dicey are the expressions of intention and the time and the mode of residence in a country. Time, according to one authority is the grand ingredient in constituting domicile and according to Dicey in most cases unavoidably conclusive. The…