IBAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI J.:- With the concurrence of learned counsel for the parties, the hearing of this appeal is being treated as pacca hearing.
2. In fact, whole controversy revolves around a decree granted by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, on 26.02.2010, passed in Civil Suit No.59/I of 2009, filed under Order XXXVII CPC, on the basis of four cheques for the recovery of Rs.1,48,50,000/-. The judgment-debtor was Mohammad Hassan Ahmad Qureshi, whose property was attached in execution of such decree and in order to frustrate such execution process, the present appellant-Mst. Ghania Hassan, filed her objection petition in the execution with the contention that, she entered into marriage with judgment-debtor Mohammad Hassan Ahmad Qureshi on 20.12.2003 against a consideration of Rs.20,000/- on demand as dower in view of the entries against Column No.13 of Nikahnama, whereas, 15-tolas of gold ornaments were given to the objector in view of Columns No.14 and 15 of Nikahnama and additionally, three biggas of agricultural land in village Baqir Shah, and an upper portion of a constructed house in Mohallah Qureshiyan, Ward No.17, were also noted in Column No.16 of Nikahnama, meant for mentioning some property or any part thereof, settled in between the parties as against the dower.
3. In addition to such claim of dower, the appellant had further claimed her right over a property measuring 282-kanals, 5-marlas, shown to have been agreed by said Mohammad Hassan Ahmad Qureshi, to be given to her as additional dower by means of an agreement, stated to have been arrived at in between the parties on 12.06.2007.
4. The objection petition was contested by the decree-holder, present respondent No.1, and the learned executing court vide order dated 29.06.2010, proceeded to dismiss the objection petition.
5. Such dismissal was called in question by the appellant in an appeal impleading only Shahid Hussain Shahid, the decree-holder as a respondent, which appeal was pending before a learned Additional District Judge at Alipur, when it was dismissed for non-prosecution on 17.09.2010.
Restoration petition of such dismissed appeal was also declined by the learned Additional District Judge, Alipur, on 11.10.2010.
6. Although through the present appeal, order dated 11.10.2010, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Alipur, has been challenged, but the learned counsel for the appellant has argued the matter on merits also, and since the merits of the case are required to be commented upon, for the reason that, in regular first appeal, the learned first appellate court has not dilated upon, therefore, it deem appropriate to examine the matter on merits also, so that the parties may not be entangled with endless litigation and a decree granted in 2010, which still awaits its satisfaction, is executed within some reasonable future time.
7. The main thrust of the appellant in asking for the suspension of execution process is on the strength of an agreement, stated to have been arrived at on 12.06.2007, executed by Mohammad Hassan Ahmad Qureshi/judgment-debtor of the recovery suit and husband of present appellant, claiming exclusive title of the attached property, subject-matter of the agreement, referred to herein-above in favour of the appellant.
The property, in addition to the one, noted in Nikahnama, against Columns No.13 to 16 cannot validly be claimed by the appellant to be her dower, settled and agreed at the time of marriage i.e. 20.12.2003. Further, the concept of additional dower, which is being claimed on the strength of the agreement, is a serious question to be examined.
8. The dower is a consideration on the basis of which a Muslim man and woman enter into a marriage contract and there is no concept of additional dower that too allegedly settled, after almost four years of the marriage. The spouses, however, would still be at liberty to exchange gifts during their matrimonial life, but such gifted property can, in no way, be given the status of dower, which is restricted to the consideration fixed at the time of a Muslim marriage.
The agreement, itself, is a document worth appreciable. Even by the statement of such agreement, it cannot be considered as a concluded and finalized settlement in between the parties, particularly, on account of the following portion of said agreement:- {{URDU TEXT}} In view of the above wording, it is, but clear that, even after entering into such agreement, the judgment-debtor has not finally transferred the mentioned property in favour of the appellant and further, when admittedly the appellant has filed a suit for recovery of her dower, including the property, subject-matter of the agreement, referred to herein-above, the appellant, till final conclusion of the proceedings of the referred suit, cannot claim herself to be having any lien over such property. Same still will be considered as in the ownership of Mohammad Hassan Ahmad Qureshi, respondent No.2/judgment-debtor in civil suit.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed his reliance on Ashiq Ali and others vs. Mst.
Zamir Fatima and others (PLD 2004 Supreme Court 10), Mst. Tahira Begum vs. Federal Land Commission, Islamabad and 5 others (1983 CLC 663), Wali Dad vs. Mst. Tasneem Kausar and another (1999 CLC 163), and Inayat Ullah vs. Mst. Parveen Akhtar (1989 SCM R 1871). Ratio in all the judgments is to the effect that, factum of gift of property by husband to wife in lieu of dower as recorded in Column No.13 of Nikahnama would attach every truth, as such, the property not mentioned in Nikahnama and only noted in the agreement, which as noted earlier, is not a concluded one and in order to give effect to the terms of such agreement, even the appellant herself has sought a decree of Court in this regard. The transaction of dower completed on the date of registration of marriage and title of land given in dower noted in Nikahnama is validly passed in favour of the wife and that entries in Nikahnama showing transfer of property in lieu of dower need no further registration and the entries in Nikahnama would be sufficient evidence of events and arrangements, which had already been subscribed to by parties and the same being not sale would not require registration. It is, thus, clear that any subsequent understanding or even unilateral offer for giving any property by a partner of matrimonial bond to another would, at no cost, be considered as additional dower, but at the most, would be considered a gift.
10. The appellant herself has approached the Court seeking a decree in this regard; hence, she is not entitled to cause frustration for the execution of a decree granted in favour of respondent No.1- Shahid Hussain Shahid on 26.02.2010.
11. For what has been discussed above, the appeal having no force is dismissed. The learned executing court, seized of the execution proceedings, is expected to expedite the process of execution.