| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2003 SLG 2519 2003 SLD 2519 2003 CLC 485 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 1912-D of 1998, decision dated: 7-08-2002.
MIAN NAZIR AKHTAR, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Revision No. 1912-D of 1998, decision dated: 7-08-2002.
MIAN NAZIR AKHTAR, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Ch. MUHAMMAD BOOTA
VS
Mst. BANO BEGUM
Law:
Section:
(a) Islamic Law-------Inheritance---Gift---Contest between brother and sister---Brother claiming entire property to the exclusion of his sister on the basis of gift made by his mother---Proof---Mother ordinarily is much more concerned about welfare of her daughter and is not expected to deprive her daughter of her share in inheritance without exceptionally strong reasons--Exceptionally strong reason must exist to satisfy judicial conscience that daughter had rightly been disinherited by mother. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 39 & 42---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.144---Suit for declaration and cancellation of gift deed made by donor (mother) in favour of defendant (her son) excluding plaintiff (her daughter)---Suit was dismissed by Trial Court, but decreed by the Appellate Court--Validity---Donor was an old, ailing and illiterate lady, who died after few months of alleged gift---Not proved on record that contents of gift deed were read out to donor and she after hearing and understanding its contents had admitted correctness thereof---Original gift deed placed on record during pendency of revision petition before High Court contained thumb-impressions of donor at four places and each thumb-impression appeared to be different to naked eye---Perhaps for such reason only attested photo copy of gift deed had been exhibited in evidence in which thumb-impressions were not clear for purpose of comparison---Such exhibit was a suspect document and Appellate Court had rightly not relied upon the same and had rightly reversed findings of Trial Court--Donor (mother) had no knowledge about real nature of document got prepared by defendant, rather she was duped and her thumb-impression had been obtained through misrepresentation---Donor had never consciously made the gift of property in. favour of defendant--Mere signatures or thumb-impressions on a deed were not sufficient to prove execution thereof in each and every case without regard to its peculiar facts and circumstances---Plaintiff had bona fidely believed that she was a co-sharer in inheritance left by her mother and waited for about eleven years in the hope that she would be given her…
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