PardaNashin lady meaning . PardaNashin lady case laws what is parda nasheen lady se property khareedne ka tareeqa, (Case laws)
 |
| Contract with Parda Nasheen lady (case laws) |
PardaNashin lady meaning ?
"PardaNashin" is a term in Urdu that refers to a lady who observes purdah, which is a practice of seclusion or privacy. In this context, a PardaNashin lady is someone who follows cultural or religious traditions that involve maintaining modesty and staying within private spaces, away from the public eye.
Case laws Parda Nashin lady
Dehati,uneducated khawateen se agar verified registery ke through bhi property through Hibba li gai hu phir sabat karne ki zimadari Hiba lene wale per hai 2017- SCMR 1110
Ghair janabdaar or relatives ki mojodgi main or relatives ko gwah bana kar kia gia Hiba mashkook nahi hu ga. 2016- YLR 29 Note 42
✍🏻 پردہ نشین عورت جو عدالت نہیں آسکتی تھی اس نے اپنی جائیداد کی بابت ہاور آف اٹارنی اپنے بھائی کو دی بھائی نے بہن کی ساری جائیداد اپنی بیوی کے نام منتقل کر دی عدالت نے کہا کہ بھائی نے بہن کی رضامندی کے بغیر جائیداد منتقل کی لہذا یہ کنٹریکٹ ایکٹ کی دفعہ 214 اور 215 کی خلاف ورزی ہے اور اس طرح جائیداد کی منتقلی غیر قانونی کے
2007 SCMR 729
Unparh parda nasheen lady ke sath transection ki sorat main bar e saboot faida uthane wale per hu ga.
2016- SCMR 1225. 2004- mld 875(d)
Parda nasheen lady ki property ke issue main sabat karna beneficiary ki zimadari hai 2014- SCMR 1469
Educated, job holder lakin mardu se ijtnab karne wali lady bhi parda nasheen lady ke zumre main aai gi
2013 CLC 52
Parda nasheen lady kionke kamzor or helpless Hoti hai Isley iss ko protection di gai hai. Under lady bhi parda nasheen lady hu sakti hai kionke inn ke sath dhoka dahi ka imkan ziada hota hai. 2013- SCMR 868
2013 CLC 419
Parda nasheen lady ke case ke sorat main fingers points expert se test karwana zaroori hai 2012 SCMR 1258
Parda nasheen lady or uneducated lady ke pass transaction ke waqat koi relative mojod nahi tha . Transaction sabat na hu gi. 2011 SCMR 621
Parda nasheen lady ke case ke sorat main documents register honey ke bawajood bhi court ko poori ahtiat karni chahye. 2010 CLC 722
Parda nasheen lady ke taraf se kiye gai Kisi bhi agreement ki sorat main sirf yeah zahar karna Kafi nahi hai ke document ko parda nasheen lady ke samne parha or sunaia gia tha balke yeah sabat karna bhi zaroori hai ke parda nasheen lady ko document ki nooiet or israt ka knowledge tha.
PLD 2005 SC 658
Parda nasheen lady ke husband ki mojodgi main Kia gia agreement dursat tasleem hu ga
1999 YLR 727
Under section 132 CRPC parda nasheen lady ke hazri maaf ki ja sakti hai. 1995 CLC 75
PLD 1994 K 372
Agarcha under section 132 CRPC Mandatory hai lakin yeah sabat karna lazmi hai ke mudaia ka case waqia hi under section 132 faal karta hai other circumstances hazri maaf na hu gi or na hi shahadat through commission likhi jai gi
PLD 1994 k 732
Parda Nasheen lady ke khalaf dawa Specific performance file kia gia
Ju ke civil court ne decree kar dia.
Magar Appeal main decree cancel hu gai.
Lahore High court ne tafseel se discuss kia ke parda Nasheen lady se property kese kharidy ja sakti hai.
Or yeh sabat karna beneficiary per hai ke wo bonafide purchaser hai
Iss main parda Nasheen lady ke qareebi rishtadaro ko gwah banana bhi zaroori hai.
Or yeh sabat karna bhi zaroori hai ke parda Nasheen lady ko us zuban main samjhya gia tha ju zuban wo bolti or samjhti hai.
Or sab batu ko prove karna beneficiary per hai.
Or mojoda case main appellant fail hu gia hai sabat karne main.
High court ne faisla Parda Nasheen lady ke haq ma de dia
For more information call or Whatsapp 03244010279
Stereo. HCJDA 38
JUDGMENT SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
R.S.A.No.65 of 2014
Muhammad Farooq Azam (deceased) through L.Rs and others
…Versus…
Mst. Hooran Bibi
JUDGMENT
Date of Hearing: 28.02.2023
Appellant(s) for: Nemo
Respondent(s) for: Mr. Muhammad Hassan Bodla, Advocate
SHAHID BILAL HASSAN-J: Despite reflection of name of
the learned counsel for the appellants in the cause list none has
entered appeared on their behalf; therefore, the instant appeal
being an old one is going to be decided after hearing learned
counsel for the respondent and going through the record.
2.
Succinctly, the present appellants instituted a suit
for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 15.08.2003
regarding land in dispute, which was duly contested by her/
respondent while submitting written statement and negated the
averments of the plaint. Out of the divergent pleadings of the
parties, the learned trial Court framed issues and evidence of
the parties was recorded. On conclusion of trial, the learned trial
Court decreed the suit in favour of the appellants vide judgment
R.S.A.No.65 of 2014
2
and decree dated 20.12.2012 with direction to deposit the
remaining sale consideration within 30 days. The respondent
being aggrieved preferred an appeal and the learned appellate
Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 05.09.2013
accepted the appeal and consequently dismissed suit of the
appellants/plaintiffs; hence, the instant regular second appeal.
2.
Heard.
3.
It is an admitted position on record that the
respondent is an illiterate, rustic and village household lady. In
respect of a transaction germane to property with a
pardanasheen, village household and rustic ladies, the Apex
Court of the country in a judgment reported as Phul Peer Shah
v. Hafeez Fatima (2016 SCMR 1225) has given the parameters
and conditions to be fulfilled in a transparent manner and held
that:-
‘In case of a (property) transaction with an old,
illiterate/rustic village ‘Pardanasheen’ lady the
following mandatory conditions should be
complied with and fulfilled in a transparent
manner and through evidence of a high degree so
as to prove the transaction as legitimate and dispel
all suspicions and doubts surrounding it:-
i.
That the lady was fully cognizant and
was aware of the nature of the
transaction and its probable
consequences;
ii.
That she had independent advice from
a reliable source/person of trust to
R.S.A.No.65 of 2014
3
fully understand the nature of the
transaction;
iii.
That witnesses to the transaction were
such, who were close relatives or fully
acquainted with the lady and had no
conflict of interest with her;
iv.
That the sale consideration was duly
paid and received by the lady in the
same manner; and
v.
That the very nature of transaction
was explained to her in the language
she understood fully and she was
apprised of the contents of the deed/
receipt, as the case may be.’
Moreover, this Court has already held that old and illiterate
ladies are entitled to the same protection which is available to
the Parda observing lady under the law; reliance is placed on
Muhammad Afzal v. Muhammad Zaman (PLD 2012 Lahore
125). Furthermore, in Ghulam Muhammad v. Zahoran Bibi and
others (2021 SCMR 19), the Apex Court of country has held:-
‘It is settled law that the beneficiary of any
transaction involving parda nasheen and illiterate
women has to prove that it was executed with free
consent and will of the lady, she was aware of the
meaning, scope and implications of the document
that she was executing. She was made to
understand the implications and consequences of
the same and had independent and objective
advice either of a lawyer or a male member of her
immediate family available to her.’
R.S.A.No.65 of 2014
4
The same remained position in judgment reported as
Muhammad Naeem Khan and another v. Muqadas Khan (decd)
through L.Rs. and another (PLD 2022 Supreme Court 99),
wherein the Apex Court of the country has invariably held:-
‘If any such plea is taken then it is a time-honored
parameter that in case of a document executed by
a pardanashin lady, the burden of proof is on the
party who depends on such a deed to persuade and
convince that Court that it has been rad over and
explicated to her and she had not only understood
it but also received independent and disinterested
advice in the matter. The aforesaid parameter and
benchmark is equally applicable to an illiterate
and ignorant woman who may not be a
pardanashin lady. If authenticity or trueness of a
transaction entered into by a pardanashin lady is
disputed or claimed to have been secured on the
basis of fraud or misrepresentation, then onus
would lie on the beneficiary of the transaction to
prove his good faith and the court has to consider
whether it was done with freewill or under duress
and has to assess further for an affirmative proof
whether the said document was read over to the
pardanashin or illiterate lady in her native
language for her proper understanding.’
However, in the present case, none of the above said parameters
have been met with and no such evidence, showing that the
respondent was having an independent advice and was fully
aware and cognizant of the nature of the transaction, was
R.S.A.No.65 of 2014
5
brought on record by the appellants. Moreover, evidence as a
whole has to be read and considered by the learned appellate
Court in a minute manner, as there are contradictions on
material points of purchasing of stamp paper for reducing the
agreement to sell Ex.P1 in the depositions of the P.Ws. which
have rightly been discussed and highlighted by the learned
appellate Court.
Payment of earnest money has also not been proved as
P.W.3 deposed that he reached the place after completion of the
deal between the parties. Moreover, P.W.2 and P.W.3 are silent
about date, time, place, month or year of alleged agreement of
sale of the land in question inter se the parties. Apart from the
above, it has surfaced on record that the possession was not
delivered to the appellants in pursuance of the purported
agreement to sell rather the same was with the appellants.
Keeping in view all the above facts, especially the factum that
the brother of the appellants namely Hashmat Khan used to
deposit installments of mortgaged land in the treasury establish
and support the stance of the respondent that her thumb
impression was obtained on the pretext of depositing the
installments of mortgage of land and she has been deprived of
the suit property fraudulently by the appellants in this way.
Even for the sake of arguments, it is admitted that the
appellant(s) have succeeded in proving their case, it is a settled
law that suit can be refused to be decreed even if the agreement
R.S.A.No.65 of 2014
6
has been proved as it is a discretionary relief and this discretion
can be exercised on equitable terms. Since it is discretionary
relief and in the present circumstances, the same can be refused
because the position in this case is otherwise as the appellants
have miserably failed to prove their stance.
4.
In addition to the above, under Section 100 of the
Code of Civil Procedure 1908, a second appeal to the High
Court lies only on any of the following grounds:
(a) the decision being contrary to law or usage
having the force of law;
(b) the decision having failed to determine some
material issue of law or usage having the force of
law; and
(c) a substantial error or defect in the procedure
provided by CPC or by any other law for the time
being in force, which may possibly have produced
error or defect in the decision of the case upon
merits.
The scope of second appeal is thus restricted and limited to
these grounds, as Section 101 expressly mandates that no
second appeal shall lie except on the grounds mentioned in
Section 100. However, when the impugned judgments and
decrees are read together with the evidence adduced by the
parties, it appears that no such ground is available to the
appellants.
5.
Pursuant to the above, the learned appellate Court
has not committed any material illegality and irregularity while
R.S.A.No.65 of 2014
7
passing the impugned judgment and decree rather vested
jurisdiction has rightly been exercised while discussing each
and every piece of evidence and construing law on the subject
in a judicious manner. Moreover, it is a settled principle, by
now, that in case of inconsistency between the findings of the
learned trial Court and the learned Appellate Court, the findings
of the latter must be given preference in the absence of any
cogent reason to the contrary. Reliance is placed on Amjad
Ikram v. Mst. Asiya Kausar and 2 others (2015 SCMR 1),
Madan Gopal and 4 others v. Maran Bepari and 3 others (PLD
1969 SC 617) and Muhammad Nawaz through LRs. v. Haji
Muhammad Baran Khan through LRs. and others (2013 SCMR
1300).
6.
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal in hand
comes to naught; hence, the same is hereby dismissed. No order
as to the costs.
(Shahid Bilal Hassan)
Judge
Approved for reporting.
Judge
M.A.Hassan
2nd judgement about parda Nasheen lady and other point is discuss is that declaration without permanent injunction is maintainable. Case will not be dismissed on this point
Form No: HCJD/C-121
ORDER SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Civil Revision No.11751 of 2023
Mehboob and others Versus Fateh Bibi and another
S. No. of order/
Proceeding
Date of order/
Proceeding
Order with signature of Judge, and that of
parties or counsel, where necessary
08.03.2023 Mr. Wafadadar Hussain Ghanjera, Advocate for
the petitioner
Tersely, respondent No.1 filed a suit for
declaration, etc. on the ground that she got the suit property as
per her share in the inheritance of her deceased father. Father of
petitioners is her real brother. Sister of respondent No.1 was
managing her land and cultivated the same whereas she herself
cultivated the land measuring 43 kanalas bearing 31, 32,
khatauni No.129 to 137 situated in Mauza Arrar and land
measuring 8 kanalas, khewat No.No.58 to 60 situated in Mauza
Sajjoka through her brother/father of the petitioners. Further she
has not alienated her land in favour of the petitioners and
challenged the mutations No.526 & 788, dated 30.06.2003 on
the ground of fraud and misrepresentation. The said suit of the
respondent No.1 was contested by the petitioners by way of
written statement. Issues were framed, evidence of parties was
recorded and learned trial Court vide judgment and decree
dated 08.04.2022 dismissed the suit of the respondent No.1.
Being aggrieved of the said judgment and decree, the
C.R.No.11751 of 2023
2
respondent No.1 preferred an appeal and vide impugned
judgment and decree dated 25.01.2023 passed by the learned
Appellate Court, appeal of the respondent No.1 was accepted,
consequently the suit filed by the respondent No.1 was decreed
and impugned mutations No.526 & 788, dated 30.06.2003
stood cancelled. Hence, instant civil revision.
2.
Heard.
3.
It has been admitted on record by the petitioners
that the respondent No.1 is an illiterate, rustic and village
household lady and her husband is also illiterate. In respect of a
transaction germane to property with a pardanasheen, village
household and rustic ladies, the Apex Court of the country in a
judgment reported as Phul Peer Shah v. Hafeez Fatima (2016
SCMR 1225) has given the parameters and conditions to be
fulfilled in a transparent manner and held that:-
‘In case of a (property) transaction with an old,
illiterate/rustic village ‘Pardanasheen’ lady the
following mandatory conditions should be
complied with and fulfilled in a transparent
manner and through evidence of a high degree so
as to prove the transaction as legitimate and dispel
all suspicions and doubts surrounding it:-
i.
That the lady was fully cognizant and
was aware of the nature of the
transaction and its probable
consequences;
ii.
That she had independent advice from
a reliable source/person of trust to
C.R.No.11751 of 2023
3
fully understand the nature of the
transaction;
iii.
That witnesses to the transaction were
such, who were close relatives or fully
acquainted with the lady and had no
conflict of interest with her;
iv.
That the sale consideration was duly
paid and received by the lady in the
same manner; and
v.
That the very nature of transaction
was explained to her in the language
she understood fully and she was
apprised of the contents of the deed/
receipt, as the case may be.’
Moreover, this Court has held that old and illiterate ladies are
entitled to the same protection which is available to the Parda
observing lady under the law; reliance is placed on Muhammad
Afzal v. Muhammad Zaman (PLD 2012 Lahore 125).
Furthermore, in Ghulam Muhammad v. Zahoran Bibi and
others (2021 SCMR 19), the Apex Court of country has held:-
‘It is settled law that the beneficiary of any
transaction involving parda nasheen and illiterate
women has to prove that it was executed with free
consent and will of the lady, she was aware of the
meaning, scope and implications of the document
that she was executing. She was made to
understand the implications and consequences of
the same and had independent and objective
advice either of a lawyer or a male member of her
immediate family available to her.
C.R.No.11751 of 2023
4
In a judgment reported as Muhammad Naeem Khan and
another v. Muqadas Khan (decd) through L.Rs. and another
(PLD 2022 Supreme Court 99), the Apex Court of the country
has invariably held:-
‘If any such plea is taken then it is a time-honored
parameter that in case of a document executed by
a pardanashin lady, the burden of proof is on the
party who depends on such a deed to persuade and
convince that Court that it has been rad over and
explicated to her and she had not only understood
it but also received independent and disinterested
advice in the matter. The aforesaid parameter and
benchmark is equally applicable to an illiterate
and ignorant woman who may not be a
pardanashin lady. If authenticity or trueness of a
transaction entered into by a pardanashin lady is
disputed or claimed to have been secured on the
basis of fraud or misrepresentation, then onus
would lie on the beneficiary of the transaction to
prove his good faith and the court has to consider
whether it was done with freewill or under duress
and has to assess further for an affirmative proof
whether the said document was read over to the
pardanashin or illiterate lady in her native
language for her proper understanding.’
However, in the present case, none of the above said parameters
have been met with and no such evidence, showing that the
respondent No.1 was having an independent advice and was
fully aware and cognizant of the nature of the transaction, was
C.R.No.11751 of 2023
5
brought on record by the present petitioners. Moreover,
evidence as a whole has to be read and considered, which goes
to evince that the petitioners have failed to prove the payment
of sale consideration to the respondent No.1, because
purportedly the bargain of oral sale was struck in presence of
Sardar Bukhsh, Mehta and son of the respondent No.1/plaintiff
but none of them were produced in the witness box by the
petitioners so as to substantiate their stance. D.W.4 is the
Patwari who entered the mutation Ex.D3 and he categorically
admitted that the mutation does not bear thumb impressions of
Fateh Bibi and even the CNIC of Fateh Bibi is not present on
the said mutation. So much so, the revenue officer has also not
been produced by the petitioners, who otherwise was necessary
to be produced and no evidence showing his incapability to
appear in the Court was adduced, therefore, adverse
presumption under Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order,
1984 would arise that the best evidence has been withheld and
if the revenue officer had appeared in the witness box, he would
not have supported the stance of the petitioners. Apart from
this, the report Ex.D1 was not produced by its author, so the
same has rightly been adjudged to be inadmissible in evidence
by the learned Courts below.
4.
So far as the arguments that only declaratory
decree was sought by the respondent No.1/plaintiff without
seeking possession, therefore, the suit was not maintainable, is
C.R.No.11751 of 2023
6
concerned, the said point has already been responded to by the
Apex Court of the country in a judgment reported as Mst.
Arshan Bi through Mst. Fatima Bi and others v. Maula Bakhsh
through Mst. Ghulam Safoor and others (2003 SCMR 318) and
it has been held that:-
‘The respondent was simply knocked out and
deprived of his land on technical grounds. If a
party seeking declaration has failed to claim
consequential relief, he should not have been nonsuited on technical grounds. It has been held time
and again by this Court that technicalities shall
not create hurdles in the way of substantial justice.
Rules and regulations are made to foster the cause
of justice and they are not to be interpreted to
thwart the same. A heavy duty is cast upon the
Courts to do substantial justice and not to deny the
same on mere technicalities. Reference in this
regard is made to the case of Ch. Akbar Ali v.
Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and
another (1991 SCMR 2114), where it was held as
under--
In the exercise to do justice in accordance
with law the Courts and forums of law
cannot sit as mere spectators as if at a high
pedestal, only to watch who out of two
quarreling parties wins. See the judgment of
this Court in the case of Muhammad Azam
v. Muhammad lqbal and others (PLD 1984
SC 95 at page 132) and Civil Appeal No.789
of 1990, decided on 26-6-1991 (Syed Phul
Shah v. Muhammad Hussain PLD 1991 SC
C.R.No.11751 of 2023
7
1051). On the
other hand deep
understanding and keen observance of
proceedings is a sine qua non for doing
justice in the Constitutional set up of
Pakistan. Those Rules of adversary system
based merely on technicalities not reaching
the depth of the matter are now a luxury of
the past. Neither of the parties can be
permitted to trap an improperly defended or
an undefended or an unsuspecting adversary
by technicalities when the demand of justice
is clearly seen even through a perfect trap.
It will make no difference if the litigant
parties are citizens high or low and /or is
Government or a State institution or
functionary acting as such. "
It has further been held in the said judgment that:-
‘The denial of relief to a party simply on the
ground that consequential relief vas not claimed
would, in no circumstances, advance the cause of
justice.
It has been held time and again that the natural
result of declaration would be that consequential
relief has to be given by the Court even if it is of
claimed. The trial Court in such like circumstances
may call upon a party to amend the plaint to that
extent and direct him to pay court-fee, if any.
Reliance in this respect is placed upon the case of
Ahmad Din v. Muhammad Shafi and others (PLD
1971 SC 762) where it was observed as under:--
“The contention of the learned counsel for
the appellant that the suit could not fail
C.R.No.11751 of 2023
8
merely by reason of the fact that the
consequential relief by way of possession
had not been claimed is not altogether
without substance. If his suit was otherwise
maintainable and he was otherwise entitled
to the relief it was open to the Courts to
allow him to amend the plaint by adding a
prayer or possession and paying the
appropriate ad valorem court-fees and then
to grant him relief even though he had not
specifically asked for it."
However, in the present case, the perusal of the plaint divulges
that respondent No.1 claims herself to be owner in possession
and alleges the disputed mutations a result of fraud, without
consideration and without change of possession. Moreover, the
property in dispute is an inherited property and possession of
the present petitioners, if any, would be considered as
constructive, because the same was under their cultivation prior
to the impugned mutations and would be considered as on
behalf of the respondent No.1 because the present petitioners
are her nephews i.e. sons of her brother namely Allah Bukhsh;
therefore, when she has proved her claim, she is also entitled to
consequential relief of possession and mere on the basis of
technicalities, she cannot be knocked out.
5.
Pursuant to the above, it is held that the learned
Courts below have committed no illegality, irregularity and
wrong exercise of jurisdiction, rather after evaluating evidence
C.R.No.11751 of 2023
9
on record have reached to a just conclusion that the petitioners/
defendants have miserably failed to prove their case through
trustworthy and reliable evidence. The impugned judgments
and decrees do not suffer from any infirmity, rather law on the
subject has rightly been construed and appreciated. As such, the
concurrent findings on record cannot be disturbed in exercise of
revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908. Reliance is placed on judgments reported as
Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another (2014
SCMR 1469), CANTONMENT BOARD through Executive
Officer, Cantt. Board Rawalpindi v. IKHLAQ AHMED and
others (2014 SCMR 161), Muhammad Farid Khan v.
Muhammad Ibrahim, etc. (2017 SCMR 679), Muhammad
Sarwar and others v. Hashmal Khan and others (PLD 2022
Supreme Court 13) and Mst. Zarsheda v. Nobat Khan (PLD
2022 Supreme Court 21) wherein it has been held that :-
‘There is a difference between the misreading,
non-reading and misappreciation of the evidence
therefore, the scope of the appellate and revisional
jurisdiction must not be confused and care must be
taken for interference in revisional jurisdiction
only in the cases in which the order passed or a
judgment rendered by a subordinate Court is
found perverse or suffering from a jurisdictional
error or the defect of misreading or non-reading of
evidence and the conclusion drawn is contrary to
law. This court in the case of Sultan Muhammad
and another v. Muhammad Qasim and others
C.R.No.11751 of 2023
10
(2010 SCMR 1630) held that the concurrent
findings of three courts below on a question of
fact, if not based on misreading or non-reading of
evidence and not suffering from any illegality or
material irregularity effecting the merits of the
case are not open to question at the revisional
stage.’
Further in judgment reported as Salamat Ali and others v.
Muhammad Din and others (PLJ 2023 SC 8), it has invariably
been held that:-
‘Needless to mention that a revisional Court
cannot upset a finding of fact of the Court(s) below
unless that finding is the result of misreading, nonreading, or perverse or absurd appraisal of some
material evidence. The revisional Court cannot
substitute the finding of the Court(s) below with its
own merely for the reason that it finds its own
finding more plausible than that of the Court(s)
below.’
6.
For the foregoing reasons, the impugned
judgments and decrees are maintained with further relief of
possession in favour of the respondent No.1 and the revision
petition in hand being devoid of any force and substance stands
dismissed in limine. No order as to the costs.
(SHAHID BILAL HASSAN)
JUDGE
Approved for reporting.
JUDGE
M.A.Hassan
Comments
Post a Comment