Mst. FAQRAZ BIBI vs ELAHI BAKHSH and 2 others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a civil revision application regarding a dispute over property ownership. The petitioner, the wife of respondent No. 3, filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming possession of a house allegedly transferred to her in lieu of dower by her father-in-law (respondent No. 1) at the time of her marriage. While the trial court initially decreed the suit in her favor, the first appellate court reversed this decision, a finding subsequently upheld by the High Court in revision. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the entry in the 'Nikah Nama' regarding the transfer of the house, coupled with the father-in-law's signature confirming the stipulation, constitutes sufficient evidence of a valid transfer of proprietary rights. Finding that the contentions regarding the evidentiary value of the 'Nikah Nama' and the established exercise of proprietary rights require deeper judicial examination, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to further consider the merits of the petitioner's claim.
- Does an entry in a Nikah Nama regarding the transfer of property in lieu of dower, signed by the transferor, constitute sufficient evidence of a valid transfer of proprietary rights?
- Can a suit for permanent injunction be maintained based on a claim of property ownership transferred as dower?
ORDER
1. ' SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 24-7-1993, dismissing in limine the Civil Revision Application No.301 of 1993 filed by the petitioner. The petitioner, who is wife of Muhammad Sididque (respondent No.3) instituted suit for permanent injunction against the respondents alleging that she was in possession of House No.Y-753 situated in Dhok Ratta, Rawalpindi, which was given to her in lieu of dower of Rs.1,00,000 at the time of her marriage by respondent No.1, the father of respondent No.3. The suit was resisted by respondents 1 and 2 and the learned trial Court after hearing the parties decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner and respondent No.3, who were plaintiffs in the above suit. On appeal the learned first appellate Court reversed the fmdin&s on issue No.4 and consequently decree and judgment passed in favour of the petitioner was set aside.
2. The learned Judge in chambers upheld the findings of the first appellate Court and dismissed Civil Revision present petition.
3. In seeking leave to appeal the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the 'Nikah Nama' of the petitioner contained a clear entry with regard to the fact that the house in dispute was given to the petitioner by the father of bridegroom at the time of marriage of the petitioner and evidence on record clearly established that eversince the marriage of the petitioner she exercised full proprietary right over the house without any interference by respondents 1 and 2. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the respondent No.1, who was the previous owner of the house, had also signed `Nikah Nama' of the petitioner in token of the confirmation of stipulation contained in the `Nikah Nama'. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner requires examination and we, accordingly, grant leave to appeal to consider the same.
Cited by 3 cases
- AYESHA BOSTAN Versus MIR HUSSAIN 2026 PLD 26
- Muhammad Fayyaz and others vs Additional District Judge and others 2023 PLD Lahore 446
- Mst. SHAFQAT PARVEEN Versus MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR AMJAD 2012 SCMR 1602