Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD AJAIB and 2 others VS Respondent: Mst. GHULAM FATIMA through Leal Heirs and others
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Syed Usman Ali Shah Title:MUHAMMAD AJAIB and 2 others vs Mst. GHULAM FATIMA through Leal Heirs
and others Case No.: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,289-R of 1988 Date of Judgment:1989-05-23 Reported As: 1989 SCMR 1709 Result: Petition dismissed Judgment ORDER ' USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioners in a declaratory suit against the dismissal of their regular second appeal by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, vide impugned judgment. ' This petition is the result of a suit brought by the plaintiffs/respondents, challenging the gift of 13 kanals 16 marlas of agricultural land mutation of which was attested on 17-7-1968, allegedly made on their behalf in favour of Muhammad Ajaib defendant/petitioner No,1. The suit of the contest was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, vide his order dated 15-6-1974. In appeal before the District Judge, the plaintiffs/respondents were held to be in continuous possession of the suit land and thus while allowing their appeal, set aside the order and decree of the Civil Judge and declared the gift made in favour of the defendant/petitioner No,1 as invalid, vide judgment dated 4-7-1975. The defendants/petitioners went in regular second appeal before the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench. A learned Single Judge of the High Court, vide his judgment dated 12-4-1988, dismissed the 2nd appeal being without any force. The learned counsel for the petitioners was heard at length. There is no evidence on the record at all to prove with regard to the transaction of the gift, nor the ingredients of the gift allegedly made in favour of the petitioner Ajaib are proved. The learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to satisfy us that it was a fit case for interference by the High Court in regular second appeal. Thus, we find no force in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.