Present: Ajmal Mian, Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, Muhammad
P D 1997 Supreme Court 730Present: Ajmal Mian, Saiduzzaman Siddiqui,Muhammad Bashir Khan Jehangiri, Nasir Aslam Zahidand Khalil-ur-Rehman Khan, JJABDUL HAMEED and 23 others -AppellantsversusMUHAMMAD MOHIYUDDIN SIDDIQUE RAJA and 3 others -RespondentsCivil Appeal No. 1083 of 1995, decided on 16th June, 1997(On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court Lahore dated 3-7-1995 passed inCivil Revision No.2240 of 1990).(a) Muhammadan Law-------Gift---Leave to appeal was granted to consider as to whether under Islamic Law gift ofusufruct of immovable property was permissible---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3).(b) Muhammadan Law---
7-Gift -Leave to appeal was granted to consider as to whether a gift made by a person to hisissueless wife for life could be construed that it was a gift of immovable property, the conditionof usufruct being void.(c) Muhammadan Law-------Gift---Condition attached to gift---Effect---If the corpus of property is gifted then attaching ofany condition derogatory to the gift, i.e., transfer of absolute ownership to the donee is, treated asvoid.Principles of Mohemedan Law by Mullah, para. 164 ref.(d) Muhammadan Law-------Gift---Word ---Definition-- means "life grant" and not "life tenancy .--[Words and phrases].(e) Muhammadan Law-------Gift---Transfer of property through gift---Validity---Determination---Matter of such transferhas to be decided in accordance with the Injunctions of Holy Qur'an and Sunnah of the HolyProphet.(f) Muhammadan Law---Gift---Nature---Determination of---Principles---If the words uttered indicate i.e. making theother owner of the thing gifted, it will be a gift but if the words indicate making the donee ownerof the usufruct of the thing gifted, then that will be "Ariyat"---If, however, from the words usedboth things can be construed in that case decision will base on the intention of the donor---Ineach case the intention of the donor will have to be construed for determining the question
whether the gift of corpus of the property was intended to be made or it was only gift of usufructof the property.(g) Muhammadan Law-------- Gift---Nature---Umra gift---Validity---Intention of. donor---Determination of---Held, indetermining the intention, if the transaction was of the nature of "Umra", that will be a case oftransfer of property absolutely to the donee as the Holy Prophet had disapproved the "Umra" ofthe period of Jahlia (pre-Islamic period), and of taking back the property gifted under "Umra"grants---Whoever is conferred upon a life grant alongwith his descendants is entitled to make useof the property conferred so long as he lives and his successors also enjoy said privilege--Property becomes their de facto belonging and donor cannot after declaring Umra lay down anycondition or make any exception for he conferred a grant and as such it becomes heritage, andright of inheritance abrogated his condition.(h) Muhammadan Law------Gift---Condition attached to gift---Effect---Any condition attached, which is derogatory to theabsolute conveyance of the gifted property is to be treated invalid and thus stands nullified and isrendered ineffective---If the intention, however, was to grant right of use and enjoyment of theusufruct then the grant of property made by use of words that "it is for you as long as you willlive" the property will return to its owner after the death of the donees.(i) Muhammadan Law-------Gift---Gift of usufruct---Permissibility---Islam recognises, permits and sanctifies the gift ofusufruct.([) Muhammadan Law---
---- Gift---Umra gift---Any derogatory condition sought to be attached on the Umra gift is voidand not recognised by Islam---Gift of property for life made by a person to any person, who maybe his issueless wife, where intention is to transfer and convey corpus of the property is to beconstrued as an outright and absolute gift of property and any condition attached derogatory tothe transfer of corpus in that case would be void.(k) Muhammadan Law-.--Gift ---Umra gift---Statement made by donor before Revenue Authorities and Courts clearlyshowed that it was the "land itself", the corpus of land which donor gifted in favour of his wifethough he added the condition "till life" therewith and not the mere enjoyment of usufructthereof---Such transaction of gift constituted complete gift of the land made by husband infavour of wife--Disposition of land in question amounted to ' Umra' recognised as one of speciesof gift of property under Muslim law.(1) Muhammadan Law------- Gift---Umra gift---Gift of corpus of land---When the declaration of "Umra" is made, it is thedonee who becomes the possessor of the thing donated and it does not revert to the donor, unlessan explicit condition is laid down in regard to it---Words "for life" used clearly indicate thatdonor intended to make "Umra" gift---Gift of the corpus of the land as such was complete andabsolute and the condition of "for life" sought to be attached was invalid and ineffective incircumstances.(m) Muhammadan Law-------Gift---If the corpus is gifted and conditions are attached to it, the gift is treated as completeand absolute for ever and conditions are held to be null and ,void.(n) Muhammadan Law---
----Gift---Umra gift ---Umra gift is a complete gift and condition derogatory to the absolutenessof the gift ,is invalid, and the property so gifted does not revert to the donor after the life of thedonee.Principles of Mahomedan Law by Mulla, para. 164; Mst. Khan Bibi v. Mst. Safia Begumand others PLD 1969 Lah. 338; Balugh-al-Maram, Hadith No.793 compiled by Al-Hafiz IonHajar Al-Asqalani, published with English Translation by Dar-us-Salam Publications, Riyadh,Saudi Arabia; Sahih Muslim by Abdul Hamid Siddiqi, Traditions Nos.3975, 3980, Chap.DCXLV, Vo1.III, pp. 860 to 862; Vol. III, pp. 598 to 606, 607 to 609 by Manzo'or AhsanAbbasi, Vol. III, pp.344, 346, 347; Nawab Umjad Ally Khan v. Mst. Mohumdee Begum 1867Mors. IA 517; Mst. Kaneez Bibi v. Sher Muhammad PLD 1991 SC 466; Fatawa Alamgiri byAllama Maulana Syed Amir Ali, Vol. VII, pp.72-73; Farid v. Nur Bibi PLD 1970 Lab. 502;Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Sargodha v. Muhammad Shafi and others PLD1971 SC 791; The State v. Ziaur-Rehman and others PLD 1973 SC 49; Al-Jehad Trust throughRaeesul Mujahideen Habib-ul-Wahab-ul-Khairi and others v. Federation of Pakistan and othersPLD 1996 SC 324; Hedaya by Charles Hamilton, 1975 Edn., pp.488489; compiled byMuhammad Bin Ali Bin Muhammad AI-Shokani, Vol. VI, pp. 16 to 18; Subul-us-Salam byMuhammad bin Ismail As-Sanani a Commentary on Bulugh Al-Maram, Vo1.III, pp.91-92; AlMughni by Abi Muhammad Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Kadama, Vol. V, pp.686to 692; by Allama Abubakar Alauddin Al-Kasani; Amjad Khan v. As raf Khan AIR 1925 Oudh568; Amjad Khan v. Ashraf Khan and others AIR 1929 PC 149; Nawazish Ali Khan v. Ali RazaKhan AIR 1948 PC 134; Fateh Muhammad v. Nathu 1982 CLC 2082; Mst. Bibi Alam Taj andothers v. Mst. Inayat Begum PLD 1963 Pesh. 199; Sar Anjam Khan v. Afzal Khan PLD 1972'Pesh. 37 and Said Akbar and others v. Mst. Kakai PLD 1975 SC 377 ref.Malik Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate instructed by Tanvir Ahmad Advocate-on-Record(absent) for Appellants.S.M. Zafar, Senior Advocate, S. Zahid Hussain, Advocate instructed by Khan ImtiazMuhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. l to 3.Respondent No.4: Ex parteDates of hearing: 24th and 25th March, 1997
JUDGMENTKHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, J.--This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against thejudgment dated 3-7-1995 of the Lahore .High Court, Lahore, whereby the revision petition ofthe appellants was dismissed and thus the judgments of the learned Courts below dismissingthe suit of the appellants/plaintiffs for declaration to the effect that the one square of land(described in the plaint) which was given to Mst. Karam Noor for life or till remarriage videMutation No. 34 dated 15-3-1949 (wrongly described as 15-9-1949) is in their possession,use and ownership as per their respective shares being legal heirs of Jatnal Din son ofMakhan Khan and that the defendant have no right to or concern with the said land except tothe extent of the share which Mst Karam Nor is entitled to taccive as a widow and so the right ofdefendants extends to 1/8th share only; and the Mutation of Inheritance No.64 dated 15-11987, appellate order of Assistant Commissioner, Gojra dated 18-3-1987 declaring Mst.Karam Noor as exclusive owner of the said land and the entries incorporated in RevenueRecord after Jamabandi for the year 1949 are invalid and ineffective in law and are liableto be cancelled; and for permanent mandatory injunction restraining the defendants Nos.lto 3 to interfere in ownership and possession of the plaintiffs and in having the entries ofthe Revenue Record corrected, were upheld.2. Leave to appeal was granted on 15-11-1995 to consider the following question oflaw:--())Whether under the Islamic, Law gift of usufruct of immovable propertypermissible?is' (ii) Whether a gift made by a person to his issueless wife for life could be construed that itwas a gift of immovable property, the condition of usufruct being void"?3. The facts forming background of the controversy subject-matter of the appeal arethat Jatnal Dtri. predecessut-in-interest of the parties was owner of 1(5 squares of land; eightsquare. in District Toba Tek Singh, and eight squares in the District of Khair Pur Sind1t. Hehad three wives, namely Mst. Fateh Begum, Sardar Begum and Karam Noor. From Mst.Fateh Begum, he had one son namely Abdul hztz while from Mst. Sardar Begum he had threeissues ttantely. Fazal-e-Hussain, Kataz Fatima and ivist. Aziz, Fatima. Mst. Karam Noor hadno issue,
4. On 25-6-1948, Jamal Dili appealed before the Patwari Halqa and reported to him threetransactions pertaining to his land on the basis of which Mutations. Nos.33, 34 and. 35 wereentered by the Patwari in the Mutation Register. the statements recorded in respect of eachtransaction read as under:--Mutation No.33 (in favour of Abdul Aziz):Mutation No 34 (in favour of Mst. Karam Noor):Mutation No 35 (in favour of Fazal-e-Hussain):These three Mutations came up before the Revenue Officer on 4-7-1948 and the orderrecorded on each of these Mutations reads as under:--Mutation Nv.33:Mutation No -34:These mutations came up before the Revenue Officer on 15-3-1949 and were sanctioned byrecording the appropriate orders in each case. These orders read as under:--Mutation No.33:Mutation No.34:
Mutation No.35:4. It is pertinent to note that Sardar Begum and Fateh Begum, the two other wives, hadalready died when the land in dispute was got mutated in the name of Mst. Karam Noor. JamalDin died on 11-4-1949. Mst. Karam Noor died on 24-4-1985 and the plaintiffs were given theirSharaee share in the land in dispute while the defendants Nos.l to 3 were given 1/8th share of theland as heirs of Mst. Karam Noor widow. The defendants/respondents challenged the order ofmutation by filing an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Gojra who remanded the matterto the Tehsildar and ultimately, vide Mutation No.674 dated 15-1-1987 the land in dispute wasmutated in favour of defendants Nos.l to 3, the heirs of Mst. Karam Noor treating her asexclusive owner of the land in dispute. The appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed on 18-31987 with the observations that the aggrieved party may approach the Civil Court. for.declaration of their claimed right. This led to the filing of the suit for declaration and permanentinjunction by the plaintiffs/appellants for seeking declaration as indicated above. It may be addedhere that Sultan Mahmood respondent No.4 who is son of Abdul Aziz did not join the plaintiffs(his mother, brothers and sisters as well as heirs of Mst. Sardar Begum, the third wife of JamalDin) and as such he was arrayed as defendant No.4 in the array of defendants alongwith thereversioners of Mst. Karam Noor, defendants Nos. l to 3. The suit was resisted by the defendantsby raising preliminary objections that the suit was barred by time; Civil Court had no jurisdictionto try the suit which was otherwise not maintainable in its present form; the plaintiffs areestopped to file this suit by their conduct and record; the suit was bad for non joinder ofnecessary parties. It was also pleaded that Mst. Karam Noor was a full owner in her lifetime andthat the plaintiffs had been admitting her as such because Jamal Din had gifted away the land infavour of Mst. Karam Noor and any condition on the gift is void.5. The learned trial Court after framing the necessary issues and recording the evidence producedby the parties dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 21-5-1989 finding Issues Nos.6and 9 in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs. These issues (Issues Nos.6 and 9) arebeing reproduced as in the present context other issues are not relevant:--Issue No. 6;"Whether Mst. Karam Noor deceased was full owner of the land in dispute and the plaintiffs hadbeen admitting the status of deceased? If so, what is its effect on this suit? OPD. "Issue No.9:
"Whether Mst. Karam Noor was limited owner and plaintiffs are entitled to get the suit landas heir of last male owner jamal Din and Mutation No.674 sanctioned by order dated 15-1-1987by Tehsildar and by order dated 18-3-1987 passed by A.C., Gojra and entries in the Revenuerecord and Jamabandis after 1949 are illegal, void and liable to be set aside? OPP. "6. -Documentary evidence which mainly consists of copies of the Revenue Record is ofimportance. The oral evidence consists of the statements of Patwari produced by each of theparties and the statements of one of the plaintiffs and the defendants. Learned trial Court heldunder Issue No.9 that the nature of transfer of suit land in the name of Mst Karam Noor was a"Tamleek" which undoubtedly is considered a gift under the Mahomedan Law, therefore, anycondition attached to such a Tamleeknama" is void and "Tamleek" is valid Learned DistrictJudge Toba Tek Singh dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 4-6-1990 agreeing with theview of the learned trial Court relying onparagraph 164 of the Principles of Mahomedan Law by Mullah. It was also noted that entries inJamabandis from 1953-54 to 1981-81, Exhs.o.1, D.4, D.S. 13.6 and D.7 indicate that Mst. KaramNoor was full owner. The plea of the appellants appearing in the statement of Muhammad AshrafP.W.2, that Karam Noor had distributed the disputed land amongst the legal heirs of Jamal Din,during her lifetime and they were in cultivating possession, in view of the above entries, it wasobserved, is not believable, The judgment of the first appellate Court was then assailed by filingRevision Petition in the High Court and the same was also dismissed by a learned Single Judgeof the Lahore High Court vide judgment dated 3-7-1995 by recording the conclusion that JwnalDin made transfer of corpus of property in dispute to Mst Karam Noor and that he (Jamal Din)made gift of the corpus of property and not gift of its usufruct. Learned Judge, after noting theprecedents, which will be noticed Thereunder, was of the view that the gift made was valid andcondition embodied in Mutation was null and void.7. Malik Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate,, learned counsel for the appellants contended thatMuslim Law contemplates gift of corpus as well as of usufruct of property and answer to thequestion, whether in a given case gift is of corpus of property or of usufruct of the property, is tobe found by ascertaining the intention of the donor from the document of gift or the statementmade, if any, or the circumstances surrounding the grant of the property. He, however, concededthat the principle is well-established that if the corpus of property is gifted then attaching of anycondition derogatory to the gift i.e. transfer of absolute ownership to the donee, is treated as void.He referred to paragraph 164 of Mahomedan Law by Sir D.F: Mulla wherein this principle ofMuslim Law is stated as under:--
"Gift with a condition.--When a gift is made subject to a condition which derogates from thecompleteness of the grant, the condition is void, and the gift will take effect as if no conditionswere attached to it.Learned counsel contended that the statements of Jamal Din (donor) contained in the report ofthe Patwari dated 25th June, 1948 and the proceedings of Revenue Officer dated 4-7-1948 showthat land in dispute was given to Mst. Karam Noor for maintenance during her life only and thisintention to gift usufruct of the land and not the land itself is manifest. He added that the donorused the words given for life i.e., "till she lives" in the first statement, and in the secondstatement before Revenue Officer he (Jamal Din, the donor) made intention explicit by addingthe .word maintenance. According to him, these words are not used by a donor whose intentionis to gift corpus of the property.8. Learned counsel, on the above premises argued that the judgments referred to by the learnedJudge in the impugned judgment are distinguishable and that the wrong approach has led to therecording of wrong conclusion. He relied on the case of Mst. Khan Bibi (PLD 1969 Lah. 338)and stated that the ratio of this precedent fully applies to the instant case. According to him, theprinciples of Muslim Law on the question of Hiba and Ariat have been fully and lucidly stated inthis judgment. He also referred to the Tradition (Hadith No.793) quoted in Bulugh-al-Maramcompiled by Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar AI-Asqalani, published with English Translation by Dar-usSalam Publications, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Hadith 793 reads:--Translation"Narrated Jabir Allah's Messenger (PBUH) said, 'What is given in life-tenancy belongs to theone to whom it is given' (Agreed upon).
Muslim has: 'Keep your properties for yourselves and do not squander them, for it anyonegives a life-tenancy it goes to the one to whom it is given, both during his life and after his death,and to his descendants.A version has: 'The life-tenancy which Allah's Messenger ( PBUH ) allowed was onlythat in which one says, ' It is for you and your descendants' When he says, 'It is yours as long asyou live', it returns to its owner.Abu Da'ud and An-Nasa'i have: 'Do not give property to go to the survivor and do notgive life-tenancy, for if anyone is given either, the property goes to his heirs. "It may be pointed out that the word has been translated as 'life-tenancy' in the Englishversion by the translator which is misleading, as means 'life grant'. This word is so translated inthe English version of 'Sahih Muslim', by Abdul Hamid Siddiqi. The definition of "( I " givenby the jurist-consults also supports the translation of " CS3-6-IJ f " in paras. below, as 'life grant'.Likewise, the translation of the words 'a version has', as well as 'life tenancy' used whiletranslating the tradition (Hadith) is misleading and does not depict the true meaning. The prefix'a version has' is misleading as if there is another version of the same Hadith (Tradition) quotedabove. These traditions have . been quoted as Traditions Nos.3975 and 3980 in Sahih Muslim inChapter DCXLV 'Al-Umra (Life Grant)' to Volume III (translation by Abdul Hamid Siddiqi).Learned counsel also relied on the comments contained in the Book Volume III at pages598 to 606 in Chapter "Kitab-ul-Aiiat" and at pages 607 to 609 to Chapter 'Kitab-ul-Hiba', topoint out the distinction between Hiba Umra and Ariat He also referred to Urdu translation byManzoor Ahsan Abbasi of Volume III, pages 344, 346 and 347 for discussion on the concept ofAriat. The concept of 'Umra' has been discussed at page-394 as under:--'Riqba' has also been defined at the same page as under:--10. Mr. S.M. Zafar, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents on the other handargued that instant case is a case of transfer of corpus of property and the words are to betreated according to the well established principles of Shariah to be inef
Muhammad bin Ismail As-Sanani a Commentary on Bulugh Al-Maram, Vo1.III, pp.91-92; Al-Mughni by Abi Muhammad Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Kadama, Vol. V, pp.686 to 692; by Allama Abubakar Alauddin Al-Kasani; Amjad Khan v. As raf Khan AIR 1925 Oudh 568; Amjad Khan v. Ashraf Khan
courses, Janjua worked for Khurram Mian to develop an understanding of the construction business. Mian owns Mian Group of Companies, an Ames-based group that owns and manages many restaurant chains throughout Iowa. Janjua interned for Mian last year as a project manager. "If you decide to run a business, then you just have to step
36 5475 muhammad arslan ajmal muhammad ajmal 3110381916217 8/14/2001 m faisalabad 1100 960 38 n 52.78 37 13304 AREEBA FATIMA ARSHAD ALI 3310231776746 2/28/2003 M Faisalabad 1100 575 53 N 52.78 FOURTH MERIT LIST OF PROVISIONALLY SELECTED
Mr.Justice Sh.Riaz Ahmed, HCJ Mr.Justice Munir A.Sheikh Mr.Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry Mr.Justice Qazi Muhammad Farooq Mr.Justice Mian Muhammad Ajmal Mr.Justice Syed Deedar Hussain Shah Mr.Justice Hamid Ali Mirza Mr.Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar Mr.Justice Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi CONSTITUTION PETITION NO.15 OF 2002
64 31319 39809002 muhammad abdullah waqar waqar hassan 65 31348 39800006 muhammad adnan allah ditta 66 31365 39806034 muhammad afzal mian khan 67 31392 39802123 muhammad ajmal muhammad nawaz 68 31424 39800428 muhammad ameer khan naseer ahmad
1. Premchand Babu, Madan Mohan: Financial Accounting and Analysis, Himalaya, 2009 2. S.A Siddiqui and A.S Siddiqui: Managerial Economics and Financial Analysis, new Age Internarional,. 2009. . Analysis Of Structures By Dev Das Menon – John wiley pubilication . . Introduction to engineering hydrology and its application, Hydrologic cycle .
Dr. Manzoor H. Qazi (CEO) Mr. Muhammad Zahid Mr. Shafquat Ali Chaudhary Mr. Qasim Farooq Ahmad Dr. Samea Kauser Ahmad Syed Ilyas Ahmed Prof. Dr. Shoab Ahmed Khan Dr. Mohammad Naseem Ansari Mr. Javed K. Siddiqui Audit Committee: Syed Ilyas Ahmed (Chairman) Dr. Habib-Ur-Rahman Dr. Samea Kauser Ahmad Mr. Javed K. Siddiqui
Dr. Manzoor H. Qazi (CEO) Mr. Muhammad Zahid Mr. Shafquat Ali Chaudhary Mr. Qasim Farooq Ahmad Dr. Samea Kauser Ahmad Syed Ilyas Ahmed Prof. Dr. Shoab Ahmed Khan Dr. Mohammad Naseem Ansari Mr. Javed K. Siddiqui Audit Committee: Syed Ilyas Ahmed (Chairman) Dr. Habib-Ur-Rahman Dr. Samea Kauser Ahmad Mr. Javed K. Siddiqui
Please find below a 12 week beginner, sprint distance triathlon training plan to help you prepare for your event. This 12 week training plan is designed to get a novice triathlete through a sprint distance triathlon. It is not a complex or hugely time consuming programme, it will get you to the finish line in good shape. In order to be able complete the training youshould have a reasonable .
