Gift Deed Cases

Citation Name: PLJ 2008 Peshawar High Court 193
Appelant Side: MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: Mst. ABDA NASREEN
Judge Name: Muhammad Alam Khan
Judgment Result:Petition Accepted
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----s. 11 & o. vii, r. 11--rejection of plaint--res-judicata--court had already, after applying its mind, turned down the request for rejection of plaint--held: as the matter was between same parties, with respect to the same gift deed and parties were litigating under the same title, so subsequent order to reject the plaint would serve as res judicata.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for gift deed
Citation Name: PLJ 2008 Cr.C 56
Appelant Side: Mst. REHANA KAUSAR
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: IJAZ AHMED and 2 others
Judge Name: Kh. Muhammad Sharif
Judgment Result:Petition dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----s. 497(5)--cancellation of bail--blood relations--bail was granted to accused and complainant challenged the same--deceased was father of both the parties and accused got his thumb impressions and signatures on the gift-deed at hospital--misused of bail--determination--report of handwriting expert is that thumb impressions on the gift deed are of deceased while signatures of bank account, identity card and passport of the deceased--recovery has been submitted--no allegation of misused of bail by accused--petitions were dismissed.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for gift deed
Citation Name: PLJ 2006 Karachi High Court 119
Appelant Side: Syed AMJAD ALI
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: Mst. KANEEZ FATIMA and 3 others
Judge Name: Azizullah M. Memon
Judgment Result:Appeals dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----s. 100 & o.xli, r. 31--specific relief act (i of 1877), s. 42--second appeal--issue wise finding--concurrent findings--parties were real brother and sisters in relation and dispute between them was with regard to possession of first floor of the house in-dispute, which was owned by their father--cross suits were filed by both parties and the suit filed by respondents was concurrently decreed by courts below while that of the appellant was dismissed by courts below--plea raised by appellant was that the courts below failed to record their findings on the pleadings of the parties and on the basis of separate issues framed by the trial court and provisions of o.xli, r.31 of civil procedure code (v of 1908) were infringed--validity--where complicated questions of fact and law were not involved in a case and on the other hand, findings recorded by courts below, on the pleadings of the parties, were clear enough to determine their rights on the basis of their pleadings the judgment so passed by trial court and first appellate court could not be said to have infringed the provisions of law--dispute between the parties was as to whether the father had at any time agreed to transfer first floor of disputed property in favour of appellant, his own son--father having purchased the property through registered document and executed gift-deed in favour of his daughters (respondents), the oral version of appellant to the extent that father entered into oral agreement to execute declaration of transfer of first floor premises in his favour could not be believed--high court declined to interfere with the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by courts below--second appeal was dismissed.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for gift deed
Citation Name: PLJ 2006 Karachi High Court 132
Appelant Side: MUHAMMAD SALEEM
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: Mst. FARIDA SALEEM and 3 others
Judge Name: Gulzar Ahmed
Judgment Result:Application allowed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----ss. 39, 42 & 54--civil procedure code, (v of 1908), ss. 151 & 152---suit for declaration, permanent injunction and cancellation of gift-deed--application for amendment of consent decree--defendant on terms among others that suit property would be sole and exclusive property of defendant and that defendant would not alienate, transfer or encumber property in-question or create any charge thereon during her life time--decree was drawn on said terms--parties through their application had sought deletion of the terms that "defendant would not alienate, transfer"--compromise decree was passed by the court on agreement of parties whereby parties were at liberty to have it amended or modified by their mutual consent--sanctity was attached to a decree passed by court and provisions of civil procedure code, provided for the situation where a decree could be sought to be amended or modified or even altogether set aside, for example by review, revision, appeal, on application under ss. 12(2) or u/s. 152 of civil procedure code--defendant was a sole and exclusive owner of property, she in law had a right to deal with it in any manner she considered appropriate--defendant, in doing so, had right to alienate, transfer, encumber or create charge on the property--clog under the terms of consent decree, could not justifiably be put on exercising such right by defendant--bar contained in said clause of the agreement would either be redundant or not in accordance with law--provisions of section 151, c.p.c. whereunder application was filed for amendment of decree by deleting the clause therein, were attracted to circumstances of the case whereby inherent power of the court could justifiably be invoked to meet the ends of justice and to amend or modify consent decree by mutual agreement of parties--application was allowed.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for gift deed
Citation Name: PLJ 2006 Lahore High Court 252
Appelant Side: Mst. MUNIRA RAFIQUE ANWAR (deceased) through L.Rs. etc
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: KHALID JAVED ANWAR etc
Judge Name: Ch. Ijaz Ahmad and Mian Saqib Nisar
Judgment Result:Appeal dismissed
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----art. 77--execution of gift deed--proof of--held: appellants/defendants were beneficiaries of gift in question so it was their duty and obligation to prove its execution--whereas they had badly failed--stamp papers were purchased on different dates and executed on the same date as stated by dw3, whereas the same was not in consonance with the stand taken in their written statement--contents of document revealed that appellants were majors but they were shown to be minors in their own written statement--finding of trial court was upheld by high court.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for gift deed
Citation Name: PLJ 2006 Lahore High Court 177
Appelant Side: LIAQAT ALI
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through D.C.O. GUJRAT
Judge Name: Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir
Judgment Result:Revision dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----arts. 17(2)(a) & 79--gift-deed--proof--held: statement of one attesting witness, not corroborated by other attesting witness--no one appeared to verify signature of other deceased marginal witness--gift-deed was not admissible in evidence.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for gift deed
Citation Name: PLJ 2006 Lahore High Court 326
Appelant Side: MUHAMMAD AMIN and 2 others
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: AKHTAR MUNIR
Judge Name: Muhammad Sayeed Akhtar
Judgment Result:Petition dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----s. 42--civil procedure code (v of 1908), s. 115, o. xxxix, rr. 1 & 2--suit for declaration--execution of general power of attorney by petitioner in favour of defendant his real brother--disposal of property by attorney in favour of his sons and daughters by way of gift--suit decreed--appeal accepted--validity--respondent was not party to proceedings--not bound by compromise--compromise deed shows that respondent was not party to it--defence of petitioner taken in written statement was that land had been transferred under compromise--respondent was not party to contract, said agreement/compromise is not binding upon him--law propounded--scope of--power of attorney in alienating property was that where agent alienates property of his principal in favour who were closely related, should in his own interest obtain consent of principal failing which principal was at liberty to repudiate transaction--held: record did not show any consideration was paid to respondent before land was gifted in favour of petitioners--petition dismissed.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for gift deed
Citation Name: PLJ 2006 Lahore High Court 842
Appelant Side: M/s. AJWA CENTRE, 17 COOPER ROAD, LAHORE
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME/WEALTH TAX, LAHORE
Judge Name: Muhammad Sair Ali & Muhammad Khalid Alvi
Judgment Result:Appeal dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----ss. 2(5)(ii) & 27--gift of property in favour of 7 persons who entered into agreement to undertake joint venture with all rights and liabilities and charges and to erect and raise plaza thereon--assessing officer's assessment for relevant year at net wealth of specified amount was maintained and upheld by income tax hierarchy upto the level of income tax appellate tribunal--legality--joint ventures themselves agreed to acquire property for specified purposes much before valuation date and got the site-plan sanctioned from l.d.a. even before executing deed of joint venture on specified date--mere by giving effect to dead from specified date would not nullify object of the deed whereunder they had agreed to acquire rights liabilities and charges etc. with effect from the date of execution of title deed i.e. 24.1.1998--question as to whether a group of persons is or is not an "associate of persons" within meaning of s. 2(5)(ii) of wealth tax act 1963, is pure question of fact to be determined keeping in view all attending circumstances--appellants admittedly being "association persons", course adopted by income hierarchy was in accordance with law--where law provides to do a particular thing in a particular manner then all other modes are necessarily forbidden--questions raised by appellants were thus, answered in the negative.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for gift deed
Citation Name: PLJ 2006 AJ&K Court 42
Appelant Side: MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ KHAN and another
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: MUHAMMAD AZEEM
Judge Name: Ghulam Mustafa Mughal
Judgment Result:Appeal dismissed
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----s. 41--jurisdiction of civil court--bar of--essentials--dispute between parties did not relate to allotment of property--dispute between parties was with respect to execution of gift deed--jurisdiction of civil court was not excluded to settle dispute in such matter

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for gift deed
Citation Name: PLJ 2006 SC-AJ&K 30
Appelant Side: LAHB DIN and another
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: FAZAL DAD & others
Judge Name: Khawaja Muhammad Saeed, C.J.
Judgment Result:Appeal accepted.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----s. 42--on basis of compromise decree, respondents applied for attestation of mutation--assistant collector refused to attest the mutation--appeal dismissed by collector, commissioner and board of revenue--writ petition was accepted by high court--challenge to--validity--suit land was transferred by respondents no. 1, 2 and 5 in favour of appellant though registered sale-deed and mutation was also attested in his favour and possession was also transferred--suit land was gifted by respondent no. 11 which was challenged and a compromise was effected and respondents no. 1 and 2 were hold owners of the suit land but appellants no. 1 & 2 were not party in proceedings therefore aforesaid compromise was ineffective and in operative against right of appellant no. 1 as the sale-deed executed in his favour was review challenged--suit land stood transferred in the name of appellant and subsequently in name of appellant no. 2, and a mutation was attested and moreso, a suit for possession was also dismissed, therefore, order passed by high court in constitutional jurisdiction for attestion of mutation in favour of respondent was against law as such the same could not be maintained--appeal accepted.