| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 1923 2004 SLD 1923 2004 CLC 1315 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No.2328 of 2003, decision dated: 4-03-2004.
MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Revision No.2328 of 2003, decision dated: 4-03-2004.
MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
MUHAMMAD MUNIR
VS
NASEER AHMED
Law:
Section:
(a) Islamic Law-------Gift---Reasons for gift---Validity---No bar in law exists against gifting the only land owned by donor to anybody he liked---Assigning some reason by donor for making a gift was not the requirement of law. Alif Khan v. Mst. Mumtaz Begum and another 1998 SCMR 2124 ref. (b) Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991)--- ----S. 13---Pre-emption suit---Plea of valid gift---Defendant denied any sale as asserted by the pre-emptor in the suit and claimed the transaction to be a gift made in his favour by the owner of the property---Both the Courts below had concurrently dismissed the suit and appeal of the preemptor ---Plea raised by the pre-emptor was that the defendant being co-sharer was already in possession of the joint property and the possession did not change hands as required at the time of making gift ---Validity--Possession of the suit-land was proved to have been transferred to the defendant---Plea raised by the- pre-emptor was repelled by High Court because possession of the suit property was delivered to the donee/defendant and assertion of donor in that regard was enough attornment--Transaction in question was not sale but was a gift and pre-emption suit against the defendant was not maintainable---High Court did not feel necessity of examining concurrent findings of facts returned by two Courts below regarding making of Talb under S.13 of Punjab Preemption Act, 1991---Both the Courts below did not misread/non-read any part of evidence and no illegality or irregularity had been committed by them---In absence of such error, no interference was permissible .in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under law---Revision was dismissed in circumstances. Taki Ahmad Khan for Petitioner. Mushtaq Ahmad Mohal for Respondent. ORDER This civil revision assails judgments and decrees, dated 26-7-2001 and 26-6-2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge and learned Additional District Judge, Pasrur, District Sialkot, concurrently deciding the lis against the petitioner. 2. Precisely, relevant facts are that the petitioner filed a suit for possession through pre-emption against Mutation No.517, dated 28-1-2000 claiming that it was sold for an amount of…
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