Gift depriving other legal heirs is invalid

Gift depriving other legal heirs is invalid
Islamic Law… Inheritance… gift(Hiba-bil-Iwaz)—disinheritance of legal heir due to disobedience—scope—plaintiff was deprived of his legal share from the inheritance due to disobedience and gift mutation was made in favour of defendants—suit filed by the plaintiff against the said mutation of gift was decreed concurrently— validity— plaintiff was deprived from the inheritance of his father due to disobedience to hold the impugned gift as valid has no sanctity nor on this sole object lawful heirs could be deprived from inheritance—Muslim owner could validly transfer his property only through the mode recognized by Islam and not otherwise— Muslim could gift away his property to anyone but in case transfer was made with intent to deprive the heirs of their of inheritance on the ground not recognized by law then same would be void— Impugned gift was made by the father in his life time in favour of defendants. i.e. daughter to deprive the son from inheritance on negative reason which was forbidden under the law— Object of donor in the present case was to deprive the plaintiff of his legal share in his property— findings recorded by the courts below with regard to plea of “aaQ” ( EXCLUSION FROM INHERTANCE) taken by the defendants were based on proper declaration that impugned mutation was invalid on that ground—impugned gift was Hibba-bil_Awez fro an amount of Rs.200,000 and plaintiff would be liable to return the said amount to the defendants—no other illegality or irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the court below… Revision was dismissed in circumstance.
2018 CLC 1535 Balochistan
2005 SCMR 135
PLD 2006 SC 15
2002 SCMR1938

Pakistan Citizenship by Birth

Citizenship by Birth
Section 4 Pakistan Citizenship, NADRA ordinance section 9 and 10. Citizenship by Birth.. Nationality, award of — Authorities declined to issue computerized National Identity Card to Petitioner on the ground that his parents were Somalian Nationals— Plea raised by petitioner was that he as born educated and was residing in Pakistan— validity—No restriction existed on any individual who was born in Pakistan, despite the fact that his parents were no citizenship of Pakistan—such individual could apply for grant of citizenship by birth in terms of section 4 of Pakistan Citizenship Act 1951,,, Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan was competent authority to process the case by virtue of Application Forms in prescribed manner and an applicant was to submit details as required in said document.. Any foreigner non-citizen of Pakistan or person from any other State born in Pakistan except a refugee was entitled to the dealt under Pakistan Citizenship Act 1951 subject to his claim if her/she fell within five concept provided under Pakistan Citizenship Act 1951 for seeking Citizenship of Pakistan— High Court directed the petitioner to approach Federal Government along with application Form duly filled in where after the authorities would decide his application in accordance with law—constitution Petition was allowed accordingly.
2018 CLC Islamabad 1588

Damages for Breach of Contract

Damages for Breach of Contract
Common law damages for breach of contract—Principle such damages were intended to place the claimant in the same position as he would have been in had the contract been performed. Such damages were therefore normally based on the difference between the effect of performance and non-performance upon the claimant’s situation—where the breach of contractual obligations had caused the claimant to suffer loss, that loss should be measured or estimated as accurately and reliability as possible—Law tolerated imprecision and there were different legal principles which could assist in estimating the claimant loss- contract law damages could not be awarded merely for the purpose of depriving the defendant of profits made as a result of the breach except in exceptional circumstances—contract law damages were not a matter of discretion. They were claimed as of right and were awarded for refused on the basis of legal principles.
(2018 SCMR 1057 Supreme Court of UK)

DNA Test in Family Matter

DNA Test in Family Matter

Section 7 family court act, Art. 128 of Qanoon Shahadat order 1984—— DNA Test—Scope—Suit for recovery of dowry articles— Dower amount and maintenance for herself  and for mniors was filed by respondent wife and the same was pending trail before family court— Petitioner/husband during pendency of the suit disowned two miors daughters and sought permission to condict DNA Test—Application of petitioner /husband was dismissed by family court as wella s by lower appellate court—Validtiy— Birth certificates of two minors girls were brought on record which depicted that both mionrs girls were born when plaintiff was legally wedded wife of the defendant and he did not dispute the same— Plea that minors girls were not born out of the wedlock of parties was raised for the first time in weitten statement—Nothing was brought on record from the side of petitoner/husband to establish that he had disputed legitimacy of children soon after their birth—Petitoiner /husband remained silent till he filed written statement in the suit. DNA Test was always conducted with the consent of the person concerned and no such consent was available. Once consent was not given DNA Test could not be conducted—High Court declined to interfere in orders passed by two courts below. Constitutional Petition was dismissed in circumstances

2017 PLD Lahore 892

Defamation Damages Jurisdiction

Section 13 of Defamation Ordinance 2002, Order VII Rule 10 CPC—Defamation—Damages— Jurisdiction of Civil Court— Plaint return of – scope— Civil Court accepted application under O.VII Rule 10 CPC and returned the plaint—Contention of Plaintiff was that it was option of the aggrieved person to avail remedy by filing suit under section 9 of CPC or under Defamation Ordinance 2002—Validity—Civil court was court of ultimate jurisdiction—Neither there was any repealing clause nor ouster of jurisdiction of civil court to try the suit filed before in with regard to damages on account of defamation—If in respect of same dispute/litigation general law and special law were in field, special law would prevail subject to condition that special law contained provisions of ouster of jurisdiction of civil courts— aggrieved person therefore, had option either to opt for redressal against defamatory action before court of general jurisdiction i.e civil court or under the special law—jurisdiction of civil court covered all kinds of civil litigation on the strength and force of section 9 CPC. Plaintiff had availed the option of the civil court but his plaint was returned while misinterpreting the law—impugned order was not sustainable in circumstances which was set aside and matter was remanded for decision afresh in accordance with law—Appeal was allowed accordingly.

PLD 2017 Lahore 884