Mst. DAULAN vs SARDARA and 5 others
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that invalidated a gift of land made by the late Nizamuddin in favor of his daughter, the petitioner. The gift was executed on April 25, 1977, registered on December 5, 1977, and mutated on June 11, 1978. Following the donor's death in 1983, the respondents, who were the donor's nephews, challenged the validity of the gift. While the trial court initially decreed the suit in favor of the respondents, the lower appellate court set aside that decision. Subsequently, the High Court allowed the respondents' revision petition, reinstating the invalidation of the gift. The core legal question before the Supreme Court concerned whether the High Court erred in its assessment of the evidence, specifically the testimony of the Advocate who prepared and registered the gift deed. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the High Court had potentially misread the evidence provided by the Advocate regarding the execution and registration of the gift, thereby necessitating a deeper review of the validity of the transaction.
- Does the testimony of an Advocate who prepared and registered a gift deed constitute sufficient evidence to establish the validity of the gift?
- Can a High Court's decision in revision be challenged if it is based on a misreading of the evidence presented before the trial court?
ORDER
' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Judge in Chambers by which the suit filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 challenging the gift made by Nizamuddin in favour of the petitioner was decreed.
2. Nizamuddin had made a gift of the land in favour of his only daughter Mst. Daulan, petitioner, on 25-4-1977 and it is alleged that possession was delivered to her. This gift deed was registered on 5- 12-1977 and the land was mutated in her name on 11-6-1978. The gift deed was prepared and got registered by one Mr. Muhammad Shafi Kalyar, Advocate. Nizamuddin died on 16-11-1983 and thereafter, respondents Nos. 1 and 2, the nephews of the deceased Nizamuddin filed suit challenging the gift as invalid. The learned trial Court decreed the suit. However, in appeal the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court was set aside. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed revision in the High Court, which was allowed and the judgment of the lower appellate Court was set aside.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the statement of Mr. Muhammad Shafiq Kalyar, Advocate to prove that he had prepared the gift deed and after execution the same was lying in his office and was registered on 5-12-1977 before the Registrar in his presence. The learned counsel contended that there was no valid and legal ground for rejecting the evidence of Mr. Muhammad Shafi Kalyar, Advocate, who had proved the gift and therefore, the evidence has completely been misread. Leave is granted.
Cited by 2 cases
- KAMRAN alias KAMI alias KAMOO and another vs The STATE 2019 YLR 887
- SAEED KHAN vs THE STATE 2010 P Cr. L J 298