Citation Name: 2024 YLR 216 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD FAROOQ KHAN vs MUHAMMAD AKRAM

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 216 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD FAROOQ KHAN VS MUHAMMAD AKRAM KHAN S. 42---Suit for declaration---Gift by father to his sons---Revocation of such gift sought on basis of fraud---Possession, delivery of---Plaintiff (father) challenged gift mutation he made in favour of his own sons at the time of their minority---Trial Court dismissed the suit, which judgment was maintained by the Appellate Court---Contention of the petitioner (plaintiff/ father) that possession was not handed over to the donees (sons)---Validity---Para 167(4) of Muhammadan Law stipulated as "once possession is delivered, nothing short of a decree of the Court is sufficient to revoke the gift---Neither a declaration of revocation by the donor nor even the institution of a suit for resuming the gift is sufficient to revoke the gift---Until a decree is passed, the done is entitled to use and dispose of the subject of the gift"---As per Para 155 of Muhammadan law, no transfer of possession was required in the case of a gift by a father to his minor child or by a guardian to his ward; and possession of father was the possession of the minors---No illegality or infirmity was noticed in the impugned judgments, dismissing the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 216 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD FAROOQ KHAN VS MUHAMMAD AKRAM KHAN O. VI, R. 4---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), S. 42---Suit for declaration---Gift mutation, challenging of---Fraud, allegation of--- Proof---Particulars of allegation missing in the pleadings---Plaintiff (father) challenged gift mutation he made in favour of his own sons at the time of their minority---Trial Court dismissed the suit, which judgment was maintained by the appellate Court---Validity---Donees being minors at the time of execution of gift-mutation could not commit fraud with their father (petitioner/plaintiff), as such, onus was upon the petitioner/plaintiff to firstly describe the detail particulars of the fraud and mis-representation in his pleadings (plaint) as required under R. 4 of O. VI of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, but perusal of the contents of plaint showed that such requisite particulars of fraud or any other ingredient (mis-representation, breach of trust, undue-influence) had not been described in the plaint which was non-compliance of said provision of law---Said flaw alone dismantled the very foundation of the assertions made in the plaint and any evidence led beyond the scope of pleadings garnered no intrinsic value, rather the same were ignorable---Mere contents of the pleadings, until proved through trustworthy believable corroborative primary evidence, could not be taken as a valid proof or otherwise of controversial fact---Petitioner/plaintiff also could not produce any concrete and unimpeachable evidence in support of the fraud, as such, he had failed to prove the allegation of fraud---It was hard to believe that donees/minors, at such tender age, could commit fraud with their father, thus assertion/allegation of the petitioner/plaintiff was not believable---No illegality or infirmity was noticed in the impugned judgments, dismissing the suit of the petitioner/ plaintiff---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 216 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD FAROOQ KHAN VS MUHAMMAD AKRAM KHAN art. 120---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), S. 42---Suit for declaration---Gift mutation, challenging of--- Fraud, allegation of--- Limitation--- Unexplained delay---Plaintiff (father) challenged gift mutation he made in favour of his own sons at the time of their minority---Trial Court dismissed the suit, which judgment was maintained by the appellate Court---Held, that the petitioner/plaintiff had challenged the validity of gift-mutation in a suit for declaration which was instituted after lapse of more than thirteen (13) years, whereas under art. 120 of the Limitation act, 1908, the maximum period for filing such suit was six years, as such present suit was miserably time-barred---No convincing reason had been furnished for delayed filing of the suit, thus the non-furnishing of the explanation disentitled the suitor for condonation of delay whereas the suitor was under legal obligation to explain the delay of each and every day but no such requisite/ convincing reasons had been furnished in said regard---No illegality or infirmity was noticed in the impugned judgments, dismissing the suit of the petitioner/ plaintiff---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 216 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD FAROOQ KHAN VS MUHAMMAD AKRAM KHAN S. 115--- Concurrent findings---Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court---Scope---Concurrent findings of fact did not call for any interference by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction in absence of any illegality or material irregularity, mis-reading and non-reading of evidence or error of jurisdiction.

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 216 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD FAROOQ KHAN vs MUHAMMAD AKRAM KHAN S — 2024 YLR 216 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR