' Mst. Yasmeen Begum wife of Mukhtar Ahmed filed a suit against Mst. Anwar. Sultan and her husband Banaras Khan and asked for possession through partition of 1/3rd share from a certain house situate in Mohallah Garhi Saidan, Peshawar City. Mst. Yasmeen Begum was allegedly given the suit house in gift by the defendants-petitioners when she got married to their son Mukhtar Ahmed and sixty deeds with regard thereto were executed on 24-3-1977. The lady plaintiff is residing in the suit house as joint owner since after that.
2. The petitioners-defendants resisted the suit stating, inter alia that no transfer documents in relation to the suit property were ever executed by them in favour of the plaintiff and stated further that if there were any such deeds the same would be fictitious and obtained through fraud and collusion. They, however, admitted that Mst. Yasmeen Begum married Mukhtar Ahmed their son and is residing in the suit house alongwith the husband. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Peshawar after setting all such necessary issues arising between the parties out of the pleadings recorded evidence pro and contra and ultimately while finding favour with the claim of Mst. Yasmeen Begum recorded a preliminary decree for possession of 1/3rd share out of the suit house in her favour vide judgment, dated 11-11-1991 which was later on affirmed in appeal before the Additional District Judge. The learned Appellate Court after hearing the parties dismissed appeal filed by the defendants-petitioners on 27-7-1993. Hence this petition under section 115, C.P.C. By Banaras Khan and his wife Mst. Anwar Sultan.
3. I have heard Mr. Tasleem Hussain Khan Advocate on behalf of the defendants-petitioners and Mr. Maazullah Khan Barkandi, Advocate for the plaintiff-respondent. The marriage of. Mst. Yasmeen Begum with Mukhtar Ahmed son of the petitioner is not denied nor this fact is denied that Mst.
Yasmeen Begum is residing in the suit property alongwith the husband since after her marriage with Mukhtiar Ahmed. According to the lady-plaintiff parents of Mukhtar Ahmed transferred 1/3rd share out of the suit house in favour of Mst. Yasmeen Begum by way of "Tamleek" in addition to lower which the husband gave to his wife. She in support thereof placed reliance on sixty unregistered deeds valuing each Rs,99 by stating that these documents were executed by the petitioners in favour of the respondent. The execution of these deeds has been proved through the statement of marginal witness, namely, Saifur-Rehman. Besides him the lady also produced scribe of the deeds. The documents were examined by the expert at the direction of the Court and he found that these correctly bear thumb-impressions of Banaras Khan and his wife Mst. Anwar Sultan. The Expert later on appeared before the Court and supported the correctness of his report.
Banaras Khan although appeared in evidence before the trial Court as his own witness but Mst.
Anwar Sultan did not deem it advisable to make a statement by herself or through an attorney in denial of the execution of said-deeds.
4. Mr. Tasleem Hussain Khan Advocate while arguing case of the petitioners stated, that dower or "Mehr" is a sum of money or other property which the wife is entitled to receive from the husband in consideration of marriage and placed reliance on Chapter XIV of the book "Principles of Muhammadan Law, 8th Edition by D.F. Mulla and contended, that the lady-wife in this case after having received her dower from the husband at the time of marriage could not be given anything more than that by the parents. He assailed genuineness of the documents pressed into evidence by Mst. Yasmeen Begum and termed it as fictitious and fraudulent. The learned advocate further stated that "Tamleek" is a vague term which connotes no recognised method of transfer of immovable property under Muslim Law.
5. I am afraid I may not be able to accept these arguments for the simple reason, that the word "Tamleek" used in the documents in this case would only mean 'gift' and there is no limitation placed by law on parents to depart from their property in favour of bridegroom at the time of marriage of their son in addition to what the husband had already given in dower to his wife. This mode of transfer is recognised by law and would be governed by the general principles of contract and may not be made complicated by introducing in a like case principles of Muhammadan Law relating to gift. I am fortified in holding in this view from the case of Khuda Bakhsh and others. v.
Mst. Khudeja Bibi PLD 1968 Lah.
1001. Additionally, in this case not only the execution of these documents has been duly proved in the evidence of the lady-wife including that of expert but also from this important fact that she resides in this very house since after her marriage with Mukhtar Ahmed son of the petitioner. In this view of the matter I see no substance in this case of civil revision petition lodged under section 115, C.P.C. Or any error in the exercise of jurisdiction or that.The lower forums have acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The petition fails and is dismissed with costs.