Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1989 SCMR 727

QUTAB DIN and 4 others vs Mst. RAHIM BIBI

Citation1989 SCMR 727
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,1216 of 1984
Date1988-11-23
Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Dr. Javed Iqbal
ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave is directed against order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 13th November, 1984 whereby the Regular Second Appeal of the petitioners was dismissed.

2. ' The background of this case is that Barkat Ali deceased made a gift of land in favour of his daughter namely Mst. Rahim Bibi respondent. The present petitioners are legal heirs of Hakam Ali who was brother of Barkat Ali. Hakam Ali filed a suit for possession against the respondent for 1/2 of the suit land on the ground that he was entitled to inherit the said share from the estate left by his deceased brother Barkat Ali who was governed by custom and the gift made by him in favour of his daughter was illegal because .The possession of the property had never been delivered. The trial Court framed numerous issues. But no issue was framed regarding non-delivery of possession as the said plea had not been taken in the pleadings. The suit was dismissed but on appeal the case was remanded with an additional issue framed by the Additional District Judge as to whether the gift deed was fictitious. The trial Court after recording the evidence again dismissed the suit by holding that the gift was not fictitious. The appeal of the petitioners was dismissed. Subsequently his R.S.A. Was also dismissed. Hence the present petition.

3. ' The only point urged before us by learned counsel is that the gift was void as no delivery of possession took place.

4. We have considered this argument of learned counsel. This objection had not been taken in the plaint and it was also not reflected in any of the issues framed. The High Court dismissed the R.S.A.

5. Mainly for the reason that the question of non-delivery of possession could not be raised at the stage of R.SA. Besides that the land in dispute was in possession of the tenants and the name of the respondent was recorded as owner of the said land in the Revenue record.

6. ' Since this is the position the order passed by the High Court is unexceptionable and no interference is called for. This petition is accordingly dismissed.

Cited by 1 case

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch