PArdanasheen alady and frod

1994 M L D 1955
Lahore
Before GulZarinKiani, J

WALAYAT---Petitioner

Versus
Mst . KANEEZ FATIMA---Respondent
Civil Revision No.2048 of 1993, decided on 8th May, 1994.
(a) Pardahnashin lady--‑



1994 M L D 1955
Lahore
Before GulZarinKiani, J

WALAYAT---Petitioner

Versus
Mst . KANEEZ FATIMA---Respondent
Civil Revision No.2048 of 1993, decided on 8th May, 1994.
(a) Pardahnashin lady--‑
----Transaction by Pardahnashin ladies and persons who were ignorant, weak and infirm---Law had woven a special ring of protection around them---Where father claimed ownership of land in question, on basis of gift from her daughter, he failed to establish satisfactorily that his daughter had gifted her land to him voluntarily and executed the gift deed for it---In presence of such daughter's own sons and daughters, there was no sound reason for her to donate her entire estate to her father---Transaction of gift in question, was, therefore, improbable and unnatural---Onus to prove voluntary execution of deed of gift lay upon father who was its beneficiary which he failed to establish---Transaction of alleged gift was, thus, a void instrument which was not binding on plaintiff lady.---[Gift].
Nur Muhammad v. MstKarimBibi PLD 1959 (W.P.) Lah932 and MstHawa v. Muhammad Yousuf and others PLD 1969 Kar324 rel
(b) Pardahnashin lady--‑
----Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.91---Alleged transaction of gift by a Pardahnashin lady---Suit for setting aside such transaction---Limitation--Voluntary execution of gift deed by plaintiff (Pardahnashin lady) and its registration at her instance was not established---Such transaction being void instrument, provision of Art.91, Limitation Act, 1908 would not be applicable thereto---If in respect of a void instrument, no suit for cancellation was brought within three years in terms of Art.91, Limitation Act, 1908, such instrument would not acquire any validity and would remain ineffective as before---Sole criterion for applicability of Art.91, Limitation Act, 1908, was whether deed in question had affected rights till some person entitled to have it set aside had done so---Where the deed as a matter of fact never affected rights, need for its being set aside would never arise---Void instrument procured in result of fraud, would not attract provision of Art. 91, Limitation Act, 1908.
RamchandraJivajiKanago and another v. LaxmanShrinivasNaik and another AIR 1945 PC 54; Jiwan v. MstSahbi PLD 1954 Lah253; Malik Ata Ullah and another v. Malik Muhammad Akram Khan and others PLD 1956 (W.P.) Lah</span...

Expand

Nur Muhammad v. MstKarimBibi PLD 1959 (W.P.) Lah932 and MstHawa v. Muhammad Yousuf and others PLD 1969 Kar324 rel
(b) Pardahnashin lady--‑
----Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.91---Alleged transaction of gift by a Pardahnashin lady---Suit for setting aside such transaction---Limitation--Voluntary execution of gift deed by plaintiff (Pardahnashin lady) and its registration at her instance was not established---Such transaction being void instrument, provision of Art.91, Limitation Act, 1908 would not be applicable thereto---If in respect of a void instrument, no suit for cancellation was brought within three years in terms of Art.91, Limitation Act, 1908, such instrument would not acquire any validity and would remain ineffective as before---Sole criterion for applicability of Art.91, Limitation Act, 1908, was whether deed in question had affected rights till some person entitled to have it set aside had done so---Where the deed as a matter of fact never affected rights, need for its being set aside would never arise---Void instrument procured in result of fraud, would not attract provision of Art. 91, Limitation Act, 1908.
RamchandraJivajiKanago and another v. LaxmanShrinivasNaik and another AIR 1945 PC 54; Jiwan v. MstSahbi PLD 1954 Lah253; Malik Ata Ullah and another v. Malik Muhammad Akram Khan and others PLD 1956 (W.P.) Lah</span...

Expand