| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1982 SLG 799 1982 SLD 799 1982 PLD 339 |
Lahore High Court
Regular Second Appeal No. 91 of 1967, decided on 1st February, 1982. dates of hearing : 23rd and 24th January, 1982
KHALILUR RAHMAN KHAN, J
Sh. Naveed Shahryar for Appellan. Raja AzizudDin for
Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 91 of 1967, decided on 1st February, 1982. dates of hearing : 23rd and 24th January, 1982
KHALILUR RAHMAN KHAN, J
Sh. Naveed Shahryar for Appellan. Raja AzizudDin for
Respondent
SHAH SAWAR (REPRESENTED BY HIS 4 HEIRS)---Appellants
VS
NAZAR HUSSAIN--Respondent
Law:
Section:
Custom (Punjab)---- - Gift-Riwaj-i-Am (Rawalpindi District)--Rajput Bhatti tribe of Gujar Khan Tehsil-Held, possessed power to alienate by way of gift a reasonable portion of ancestral property-Gift of portion of ancestral property held by alienor on religious purposes-Held, valid Finding of two Courts below that alienor did not possess any other property at time of gift found to be patently contrary to recordHeld, liable to be set aside-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. I00.[Gift . Fazal Bibi and another v. Khan Muhammad and another P L D 1951 Lab. 314, R. S. A. 294 of 1954 ; L. P. A. No. 81 of 1946 ; Mst. Thakri v. Tulsi Ram A I R 1931 Lab. 239 ; Hidayat and another v. Alaf Din A I R 1929 Lab. 639 ; Ali and another v. Fazla 144 I C 646 ; Umra and others v. Mst. Raji and another A I R 1925 Lab. 222 ref. JUDGMENT This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by Nazar Hussain, respondent against Shah Sawar, appellant for possession of one-half share out of 10 kanals 17 marlas of land described in the plaint on the averments that his father Qashim belonged to Rajput tribe which was a notified and predominently agricultural tribe and in matter of succession and alienation was governed by the Customary Law and that the land in question being ancestral qua Qashim, he could not have legally alienated the suit land by way of gift in favour of the defendant/appellant and that the said gift was null and void and ineffective as against his rights. The appellant/ defendant contested the suit by pleading that the gift in his favour was for religious purpose inasmuch as his family gave education to the children of the donor. The parties, however, admitted in their better statements that the land in dispute was ancestral and that Qashim was governed by agricultural custom. 2. The learned trial Court after framing the necessary issues and recording the evidence adduced by the parties decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 15-11-1965. The first appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi on 2-6-1966. Hence this second appeal. ` 3. The learned trial Court was of the view that the matter in controversy between…
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