Case Details

Citation(s)
1958 SLG 159 1958 SLD 159 = 1958 PLD 198
Lahore High Court
Regular Second Appeal No. 304 of 1955, decided on 17thDecember 1957, from the decree of Sheikh Ata Ullah Qureshi.Additional District Judge, Lahore, dated the 2nd May 1955.dates of hearing: 21st and 22nd October 1957
B. Z. KAIKAUS, J
Muhammad Ismail Bhatti for Appellant. Aftab Hussain for
Respondent

WALI MUHAMMADVsMst. ANWAR SULTANA

Law: Evidence Act, (1 of 1872)

Section: 91 & 92

(a) Muhammadan Law---Hiba---Hiba is gift of corpus of tangible property without consideration.(b) Muhammadan Law---Ariyat---Ariyat means gift of usufruct-Ariyat is revocable while hiba is revocable only in particular cases.(c) Muhammadan Law---Ariyat-Settlement is revocable if it is ariyat or hiba.(d) Evidence Act (I of 1872),Ss. 91 & 92-Nature and extent of transfer are to be determined by document itself, provided other party is not entitled to rectify deed.(e) Evidence Act (I of 1872),Ss. 91 & 92-S. 91 would apply if agreement is written by both parties or it is written by one party with approval of the other-Meaning of "terms".In order that oral evidence be inadmissible by virtue of section 91, the first requisite is that the terms of the contract. I grant or other disposition of property, should have been reduced to the form of a writing. That means in the case of an agreement, that the writing should be either executed by both parties to the agreement or should be executed by one with the approval of the other. The tamliknama was executed only by tine appellant, and according to the plea of the respondent, its contents did not have her approval. The representation made to her was that it was a deed of transfer. If her plea be found to be correct then section 91 would have no application, because it cannot be said that the terms have been reduced to writing. At the same time, it may be that in the present case section 92 is not applicable by reason of its first proviso if the Court comes to the conclusion that in view of the fraud of the appellant the respondent was entitled to rectification of the deed.The above considerations will apply in case the respon�dent intends to prove that the transaction which is expressed as a gift in the tamliknama is in reality a sale. But assuming that the document was executed with her approval and that there was no fraud still that would not necessarily debar her from proving that the gift was for consideration. What sections 91 and 92 exclude is evidence as to the terms of a contract, grant or disposition of property.A term is an expression of the will by the person or persons creating a change in jural…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register