RUKAN DIN And Others vs Mst. TAZEEM AKHTAR
This petition for leave to appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench dated 9-10-1988, which refused to accept the alleged abandonment or renunciation of property rights by Mst. Tazeem Akhtar respondent. The petitioners, heirs of Sharaf Din, contended that the respondent had abandoned her 1/2 share in a Haveli, originally transferred to her in lieu of dower, to secure her divorce from Sharaf Din's son Shamsuddin. The core legal question was whether the respondent had validly abandoned her property rights through the deed dated 3-7-1979. The Supreme Court held that the marriage was consummated and that the deed in question neither referred to the property transferred in lieu of dower nor indicated any abandonment of rights in favor of Shamsuddin or Sharaf Din. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the High Court's decision.
- Whether an alleged abandonment of property rights given in lieu of dower can be inferred from a document that makes no reference to the said property?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings regarding the non-existence of a property abandonment deed?
ORDER
RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.--This is a petition by Rukan Din and others seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench dated 9-10-1988.
2. Through the present petition the petitioners seek to challenge the decision of the High Court in which the alleged abandonment/renunciation effected by Mst. Tazeem Akhtar respondent on 3-7- 1979 has not been accepted. The petitioners are the heirs of one Sharaf Din. The said Sharaf Din on 13-5-1977 transferred ownership rights in 1 /2 share of the Haveli owned by him in Village Hassan Abdal to Mst. Tazeem Akhtar in lieu of Rs. 3,000 which had been fixed as her dower for her marriage with his son Shamsuddin. It is the case of the. Petitioner that the marriage was not consummated and that in order to secure her Talaq, the respondent on 3-7-1979 had given up and abandoned/renounced her rights in the property in favour of Sharaf Din.
3. We have examined the record and find that the marriage was consummated and that the alleged deed dated 3-7-1979 purporting to be in favour of Shamsuddin neither refers to the property originally transferred to her in lieu of dower, nor does it refer to the same being transferred or abanoned by her in favour of Shamsuddin or Sharaf Din nor any such inference can be even obliquely drawn from it. 1n the circumstances, we would not like to interfere in this case. This petition is 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.