Find a Lawyer

Regular Second Appeal No.132 of 1968, heard on 9th April, 1986.

‑‑‑S.2 [as amended by West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (Amendment) Ordinance XIII of 1983) ]‑‑Gift made by last male‑holder‑‑Status of donor as well as donee after amendment of Act V of 1962‑‑Last male‑holder would be deemed to be complete owner‑ Gift made by such owner even when custom was in vogue would be deemed to be perfectly valid under personal law which would be applicable by virtue of amending Act XIII of 1983‑‑Gift in favour of females, held, consequently would vest same in donee with absolute ownership‑ Heirs of such females would be entitled to inherit such property after their death.

Talib Haider Rizvi for Appellant.

Sh. Maqbool Ahmad‑II for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 9th April 1986.

This R.S.A. calls ‑in question the judgment/ decree, dated 7‑10‑1967 of the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat whereby the appellant‑defendant's first appeal was dismissed.

2 The land in question belonged to Ismail son of Lakhan. He had gifted half of it to his daughter Mst. Bahishtan and the remaining half to the appellant‑defendant Mst, Mehri as the daughter of his predeceased on Malik, on 15‑1‑1926. He died subsequently and the two donees i'ept the property in their possession. However, Mst. Bahishtan died on 25‑5‑1930. The half held by her was mutated in favour of her daughter Mst. Bibi who died on 21‑4‑1937. Consequently, the half passed on to the defendant Mst. Mehri. In this way the whole of the property left by Ismail, the last male holder, was received by Mst. Mehri as his sole heir.

3 The respondents‑plaintiffs brought a suit on 10‑4‑1940 claiming that the devolution of the property of Mst. Bibi had been wrongly .‑even to the appellant Mst. Mehri and that instead it should have been given to them as her collaterals having descended from the same common ancestor Makhan.

4. The suit was resisted maintaining that the appellant Mst. Mehri had been rightly given the whole of the property as the predeceased Son's daughter of the last owner. It was decreed by the trial Court on 11‑2‑1941 and an appeal from the decree was dismissed.

5.The respondents brought the present suit on 18‑4‑1956 for possession of the land presumably asserting that they being reversioners of the last male holder Ismail were entitled to the whole of the property left by him, all the more when they had been able to get a decree in assertion of their such right on 11‑2‑1941. It was seriously contested. The Courts below concurrently decreed it.

6. The entire complexion seems to have undergone a change by the enforcement of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act; (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983, whereby, we will have to take th ' succession back to the last male holder treating him to be an heir o his Muslim father. He shall be deemed to be its complete owner. If h made gift thereof to his daughter Mst. Bahishtan and Poti Mst. Mehri appellant, it shall be deemed to be perfectly valid under the Persona Law which is being applied to him by virtue of the deeming clause. It will have the effect of making the two donees Mst. Bahishtan and Mst. Mehri full owners of their respective shares so that the half given t the present appellant will vest in her as absolute owner. If at all, i had been wrongly transferred to the respondents‑plaintiffs. The possession is still with the appellant as the present suit has bee brought to recover it from her. Secondly, the gift made to her as fa back as 1926 was not at all challenged. The suit filed in 1940 was obviously not for the relief of getting that gift declared null and void against the respondents' reversionary rights. Instead, they sought sort of declaration to the effect that they were sole heirs of the las male holder Ismail. The gift in favour of Mst. Mehri had by the tim become absolute even under custom and there was no question of takin that portion of land from her. Of course, the remaining half receive by Mst. Bahishtan in the first instance as donee and then by he daughter Mst. Bibi deceased will go to the respondents even though i were her personal property because they are admittedly her heirs having descended from the same. common ancestor. It appears that she died before marrying and, therefore, the respondents alone were her heirs.

7. As a result, the appeal is partially accepted to the extent tha 1/2 given to the appellant Mst. Mehri by her grandfather will be deeme to be her personal property. With regard to the remaining 1/2, the appeal is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

H. B. T. Appeal partially accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.