' Petitioner and respondent No,3 were married vide Nikahnama, dated 9-6-1994. In the relevant column of the Nikahnama, 10 tolas of gold ornaments and one Lac rupees is fixed as dower, in lieu of the cash amount, the petitioner No,3 vide a Tamleeqnama, dated 29-9-1994, gifted a part of the house which finds mention therein. It is so stated in the Nikahanama that the petitioner is the owner of the house and has given the same to the respndent in lieu of the cash dower amount.
Subsequently, the parties were separated and the respondent No,3 brought a suit for the recovery of dower claiming that neither 10 tolas of gold ornaments nor the house in question, was given to her. She required that the petitioner be directed to execute the sale-deed of the said house in her favour. This suit was resisted by the said respondent who took up the plea that he paid the cash amount of one lac to the petitioner as also the ornaments mentioned in the Nikahnama. Moreover, the Tamleeqnama was not a genuine document. Besides, it is also stated that the house in question belonged to the father of the petitioner namely Ghulam Yasin, therefore, he not being the owner of the said house, could not gift the house to the respondent in lieu of her dower. Issues were framed parties led evidence and the learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree, dated 26-11- 1997 came to the conclusion that instead of the house, the petitioner had paid the cash amount of one lac to the respondent and that it is also proven from the record that she had been received 10 tolas of jewelry, consequently, .Her suit was dismissed. Against the above, respondent No,3 filed an appeal which has been accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Ahmed Pur East on 6-11- 1998 by coming to the conclusion that from the reading of Exh.P-2, Nikahnama, Exh.P-1, Tamleeqnama by Ghulam Yasin father of petitioner in his favour and Exh.P-3 Tamleeqnama by petitioner in favour of the respondent, with regard to the house in question, it is proved that she had been given the said house in lieu of her dower. It was also found that the payment of money by petitioner was for the jewelry mentioned above and it is not the cash amount of one lac, consequently respondent No,3's claim with regard to the jewelry was dismissed, but for the house it was allowed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that from the evidence led by the respondent No,3, particularly her own statement, it is proved that a sum of Rs,1,00,000 has been received by her as dower amount, but she asserts that this amount was subsequently snatched by petitioner, that being so, respondent cannot maintain an action for the recovery of their dower rather should file a regular recovery suit as held in the case reported as Allauddin Arshad v. Mst. Neelofar Tareen etc. PLD 1984 Lahore 401.
3. The critical question to be examined in the present case is, whether the petitioner had paid the amount of one lac to respondent thus she is not entitled to the house. The admission which is attributed to the respondent No,3 in this behalf has not been accepted to be correct by the learned Court in appeal. By considering and appreciating the evidence on the record, the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that the amount which she admitted, is not with regard to the cash amount of one lac, rather is for the gold ornaments, it is onthis score her claim for the ornaments has been dismissed, whereas for the house, the findings are that the amount of one lac has not been proved by petitioner to have been paid to her. Learned Appellate Court has also came to the conclusion that though the house in question was admittedly owned by the father of the petitioner but by virtue of document Exh.P-1 it has been gifted by his father to the petitioner and eventually through Exh.P-3, read with relevant entry of Nikahnama Exh.P-2, it has vested with the respondent No,3 in lieu of her dower.
4. In order to appreciate whether the house in question had been given to the respondent in lieu of the dower the most important document is Nikahnama (Exh.P-2), which is admitted between the parties. The relevant column of this Nikahnama clearly show without any doubt that for the sum of Rs,1,00,000 which was fixed as a dower between the parties, the house in question was gifted to respondent No,3. This finds support from two Tamleeqnamas Exh.P-1 and Exh.P3, which are duly proved through witnesses and the scribe of the documents. From this evidence it is conclusively established that no cash amount was paid and it is the house which was gifted to the respondent in lieu thereof. If the petitioner had at any subsequent time given such amount, he should have proved the same through positive evidence, Tamleeqnama should have been got cancelled to avoid any possibility of dispute in this behalf. The solitary statement of the petitioner to discharge the burden of proving cash payment is not sufficient evidence in the eyes of law.
5. Learned Trial Court has fallen in error in construing the relevant column of the Nikahnama in coming to the conclusion that at sum of one lac was independently paid. If the text is read as a whole, it is clear that this amount was paid by virtue of the gift of the house and not in cash. The learned appellant Judge has duly considered the entire evidence on the record and his findings are based upon cogent reasoning and proper reading of the evidence to which no exception can be taken.
' In the light of above, while exercising my Constitutional jurisdiction, I do not find this to be a fit case for the interference. Consequently, this petition has no merits and is hereby dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.