* Once the gift/hiba itself was declared to be unlawful, any further transaction on the basis of the said gift would only be a nullity in the eye of law for that the wife i.e. donee of the gift did not have legal title to the house to sell the same to the petitioner---Both gift as well as the purported sale in favour of the petitioner were nothing but sham transactions and its purpose was to ensure that the decree for maintenance was not satisfied---decree was for the maintenance of the daughter, but unfortunately, the father in sheer disregard of his parental obligation had indulged in making unlawful transactions---court while exercising parental jurisdiction could not just sit and be a spectator in such unholy and unlawful conduct of the father---Section 13(3) of the West Pakistan family court s Act, 1964, empowered the family court to execute its own decree for payment of money by adopting modes provided for recovery of arrears of land revenue (including selling the immovable property of the defaulter)---Order of attachment of the house of the father passed by the family court in execution of the decree passed by it, was in accordance with law---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly and leave was refused.
Once the gift/hiba itself was declared to be unlawful, any further transaction on the basis of the said gift would only be a nullity in...........
2015 SCMR 128
Technical trappings of execution of decree provided in the civil Procedure Code, 1908, were excluded from application before the family court in execution of a decree for maintenance.
2015 SCMR 128 AMJAD IQBAL Versus Mst. NIDA SOHAIL
0 comments:
Post a Comment