Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 124‑R of 1984, decided on 7th April, 1986.
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 19‑3‑1984 in Regular Second Appeal No. 243 of 1982).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Gift‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Petitioner, on authority of power of attorney given to him by father of respondent, made gift of land in dispute to his own sons‑‑Suit brought by respondent against her being deprived of her share in disputed property, decreed by Courts below on ground that said power of attorney which formed basis of gift had not been legally proved to have been executed by alleged executants‑‑Alleged executant at relevant time was residing out of country‑‑Findings and reasons given by Courts below on lack of proof of document regarding its authenticity and execution unexceptionable‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
‑‑‑S. 3‑‑Limitation‑‑Void transaction‑‑Gift challenged in suit void‑‑Suit, held, not barred by limitation.
Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Afzal Siddiqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑ Record for Respondent.
‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 19‑3‑1984 of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioners' Regular Second Appeal arising out of a land/gift case, was dismissed.
Muhammad Nawaz petitioner No. 1 acting on a purported power of attorney given to him by Shahbaz Khan, the original owner of the land, made gift of the suit‑land to his own two sons, Muhammad Sheraz and Muhammad Iqbal, petitioners Nos. 2 and 3. Mst. Ismat Jan respondent, sister of Muhammad Nawaz, filed a wait seeking remedy against her being deprived of her share ('tom the suit property which admittedly belonged to her father Shahbaz Khan. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit. But the learned First Appellate Court decreed it on the ground that the alleged power of attorney which was the basis of the gift made by Muhammad Nawaz, had not been legally proved to have been executed by Shahbaz Khan. The petitioners' Second Appeal in the High Court met the same result, the first appellate judgment was affirmed, therefore, they have now sought leave to appeal.
We have heard the learned counsel in support of the two pleas regarding proof of the authenticity and execution of the power of attorney as also on the question of limitation. The learned Judge in the High Court made the following observation with regard to the power of attorney:‑
"Having given anxious consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after carefully perusing the record, I am inclined to hold that the document Exh. D/4 does not purport to have been executed before and authenticated by a Notary Public or any Court, Judge, Magistrate, Pakistani Counsel or Vice‑counsel or representative of the Central Government."
The alleged executant namely, Shahbaz Khan was at the relevant time .residing in Indonesia that is why the High Court had to make observation with regard to authentication. The findings and reasons given by the learned Courts below on lack of proof of the document regarding its authenticity and execution, are unexceptionable. On the question of limitation also the gift being void itself the suit, it was held by the learned Courts below, was not barred by limitation. The learned counsel did not controvert this point. We, therefore, do not consider it necessary to make any further comment in this behalf. It is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal the same accordingly is refused.
M.Y.H. Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer