Registered hiba through attorney cancelled by Supreme Court
 |
| Registered hiba through attorney cancelled by Supreme Court |
رجسٹرڈ ھبہ جو اٹارنی کے ذریعہ سے کروایا گیا تھا ۔ سپریم کورٹ نے کینسل کر دیا۔
** سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان میں
(اپیل کا دائرہ اختیار)**
*
یہ سول پٹیشن 17.09.2021 کے فیصلے کو چیلنج کرتی ہے، جسے لاہور ہائی کورٹ، راولپنڈی بنچ نے سول نظرثانی نمبر 115-D/2021 میں منظور کیا، جس نے سول نظرثانی کو مسترد کر دیا۔
**2۔ کیس کے حقائق:**
جواب دہندہ نمبر 1 نے 24.09.2011 کو رجسٹرڈ گفٹ ڈیڈ کے اعلان اور منسوخی کے لیے مقدمہ دائر کیا۔ زیر بحث جائیداد اصل میں اس کے والد کی ملکیت تھی اور اسے گفٹ ڈیڈ نمبر 100 مورخہ 10.01.1978 کے ذریعے تحفے میں دی گئی تھی، قبضے کے ساتھ۔ جواب دہندہ نمبر 1 نے بعد میں زمین پر تعمیر کی اور جائیداد کے انتظام کے لیے اپنے والد کے حق میں 01.03.2006 کو پاور آف اٹارنی کا اجراء کیا۔
اس اٹارنی نے پھر متنازعہ ڈیڈ کے ذریعے درخواست گزار کو جائیداد تحفے میں دی۔
جواب دہندہ نمبر 1 نے استدلال کیا کہ اس کے والد، بڑھاپے اور صحت کے مسائل کی وجہ سے دماغی حالت میں ٹھیک نہیں تھے، جس کی وجہ سے گفٹ ڈیڈ باطل ہے۔ ٹرائل کورٹ نے 20.02.2020 کو جواب دہندہ نمبر 1 کے حق میں فیصلہ دیا، اور ڈسٹرکٹ جج اور لاہور ہائی کورٹ دونوں نے اس فیصلے کو برقرار رکھا۔
**3۔ درخواست گزار کے دلائل:**
درخواست گزار کے وکیل نے دلیل دی کہ رجسٹرڈ گفٹ ڈیڈ درست ہے اور تمام شواہد کو نیچے کی عدالتوں نے غلط پڑھا ہے۔ مزید استدلال کیا گیا کہ سب رجسٹرار کی گواہی نے دستاویزات کی تصدیق کی، اور درخواست گزار کے خصوصی اٹارنی نے 2012 سے 2015 تک کرایہ جمع کرایا تھا۔ درخواست گزار، برطانیہ میں مقیم، نے دعویٰ کیا کہ جواب دہندہ نمبر 1 نے جائیداد پر زبردستی قبضہ کیا، جس سے فوجداری کارروائی کی جائے گی۔ اس کے خلاف۔ مزید برآں، پرنسپل رضامندی کی ضرورت کی نفی کرتے ہوئے، پاور آف اٹارنی نے تحفہ دینے کی اجازت دی۔
**4۔ تجزیہ:**
درخواست گزار کو جائیداد جواب دہندہ نمبر 1 کے جنرل اٹارنی نے تحفے میں دی تھی۔ تاہم، اس بات کا کوئی ثبوت نہیں تھا کہ اٹارنی نے اس منتقلی کے لیے پرنسپل (جواب دہندہ نمبر 1) سے اجازت لی تھی۔ درخواست گزار کا تحفہ اور فروخت دونوں کا دوہرا دعویٰ متضاد تھا۔ ٹرائل کورٹ میں پیش کیے گئے شواہد، بشمول یوٹیلیٹی بلز اور دیگر دستاویزات، جواب دہندہ نمبر 1 کے جائیداد پر مسلسل قبضے کی حمایت کرتے ہیں۔ مجرمانہ مقدمے میں مدعا علیہ نمبر 1 اور اس کے وکیل کی بریت اس بات کو مزید ثابت کرتی ہے۔
**5۔ قانونی اصول:**
اسلامی قانون کے تحت تحفہ عطیہ کرنے والے کا ہوش اور عقل میں ہونا ضروری ہے، تحفہ موجودہ جائیداد کا ہونا چاہیے، اور عطیہ کرنے والے کا جسمانی قبضہ ہونا چاہیے۔ اٹارنی پرنسپل کی واضح اجازت کے بغیر جائیداد تحفہ نہیں دے سکتا۔ متعلقہ کیس قانون اس بات کی تائید کرتا ہے کہ ایک جنرل اٹارنی کو اپنی یا متعلقہ فریقین کو جائیداد کی منتقلی کے لیے خصوصی اجازت درکار ہوتی ہے (PLD 2003 SC 494؛ PLD 2008 SC 389؛ 2016 SCMR 1781)۔
**6۔ نتیجہ:**
ذیل کی عدالتوں کے ہم آہنگ نتائج نے ثبوت کو غلط نہیں پڑھا یا کسی طریقہ کار کی غلطی کا ارتکاب نہیں کیا۔ پرنسپل کی رضامندی کے بغیر گفٹ ڈیڈ کی توثیق نہ کرنے کا لاہور ہائی کورٹ کا فیصلہ درست تھا۔
**7۔ ترتیب:**
بیان کردہ وجوہات کی بناء پر، دیوانی پٹیشن کو خارج کر دیا جاتا ہے، اور اپیل کرنے کی اجازت سے انکار کر دیا جاتا ہے۔ لاہور ہائی کورٹ کا فیصلہ درست ثابت ہوا۔
**چیف جسٹس**
**جج**
Must read Judgement
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
PRESENT:
MR. JUSTICE QAZI FAEZ ISA, CJ
MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR
MS. JUSTICE MUSARRAT HILALI
CIVIL PETITION NO.5972 OF 2021
(Against the Judgment dated 17.09.2021
passed by
the
Lahore High Court,
Rawalpindi Bench in Civil Revision No. 115-
D/2021)
Babar Anwar
……Petitioner
VERSUS
Muhammad Ashraf and another
…Respondents
For the Petitioner:
Mian Muhammad Yasin, ASC
For Respondents:
Not Represented
Date of Hearing: 24.01.2024
JUDGMENT
Muhammad Ali Mazhar, J. This Civil Petition is brought to challenge
the judgment dated 17.09.2021, passed by Lahore High Court,
Rawalpindi Bench, in Civil Revision No.115-D/2021, by means of
which the civil revision was dismissed.
2. The compendium of facts of the case are that respondent No.1 had
filed a suit for declaration and cancellation of a registered gift deed
dated 24.09.2011. The sequence of events is that the property in
question was originally owned by his father, who gifted it to the
respondent No.1 vide gift deed No.100 dated 10.01.1978, and also
handed over its possession. Thereafter, respondent No.1 raised
construction on the land and on 01.03.2006, he also executed a power
of attorney in the name of his father for administration and
supervision of the property, but the said attorney gifted the property in
question to petitioner vide gift deed dated 24.09.2011. It was further
C.P.No.5972/2021
-2-
stated in the plaint that the said attorney (the father of respondent
No.1), due to his old age and cardiac issues, was also not in a proper
frame of mind. Therefore, the gift deed was the result of connivance
and disingenuousness. The learned Trial Court, after recording
evidence, decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated
20.02.2020. The petitioner filed an appeal before the learned District
Judge, but vide judgment and decree dated 04.02.2021, the appeal
was dismissed, thereafter, the petitioner filed Civil Revision No.115-
D/2021 in the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which was also
dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 17.09.2021.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that a valid registered
gift deed was on record but all the courts below misread the evidence.
It was further contended that the concerned Sub-Registrar appeared
before the learned Trial Court and his evidence was also recorded,
wherein he verified the contents of the registered documents. An
important piece of evidence of D.W.1 was also ignored, who remained
as a tenant on the property in question and depositing rent into the
bank account of the petitioner from 2012 till September 2015. He
further argued that the petitioner is a permanent resident of United
Kingdom and in his absence, respondent No.1 forcibly took over
possession of the property for which the petitioner had already
initiated criminal proceedings against respondent No.1. It was further
averred that in the power of attorney, the principal had authorized his
attorney to gift out the property; hence, there was no need to ask for
any consent or permission of the principal for conferring the gift.
4. Heard the arguments. Incontrovertibly, the property in question
was gifted to the petitioner through the general attorney of
respondent No.1. Neither is anything reflected from the record that the
general attorney obtained permission or consent from his principal for
transferring the property in question by means of gift to the petitioner,
nor was it ever pleaded that the earlier gift was revoked for any
reasons. All the more so, the petitioner pleaded in his defense that he
purchased the property in question against valuable consideration,
but at the same time, he was also claiming the property as a lawful
donee. Both pleas are mutually destructive if considered in
juxtaposition. If it was a case of gift, then the plea of sale was
misleading and erroneous, and if the property was purchased against
C.P.No.5972/2021
-3-
valuable consideration, then there was no logical reason for the
execution of a gift deed rather than a conveyance deed to unveil a
straightforward sale transaction. As far as the proof of possession of
respondent No.1 is concerned, it clearly transpires from the
documents exhibited in the Trial Court that though the petitioner’s
special attorney averred that at the time of transfer of property,
possession was also delivered, but subsequently, it was snatched by
respondent No.1 which assertion was belied and in support of thereof,
the respondent No.1 produced copies of Form P.T.I as Exh.P7 to
Exh.P10, a bunch of electricity bills as Exh.P12, and a bunch of sui
gas bills as Exh.P13 to corroborate and substantiate the factum of
possession. The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 3 of the
Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 against respondent No.1 and his
special attorney, but the Trial Court acquitted them vide judgment
dated 13.03.2019, which was upheld by the Lahore High Court vide
order dated 09.12.2019.
5. Presenting a gift, whether grand or tiny, is an act of kindness and
compassion, and between the parents and children, it is somewhat
out of love and affection. According to Hedaya, "Hiba," in its literal
sense, signifies the donation of a thing from which the donee may
derive a benefit; in the language of the law it means a transfer of
property, made immediately, and without any exchange. While
according to Ameer Ali, "A hiba, pure and simple, is the voluntary
transfer, without consideration, of some specific property (whether
existing in substance or as a chose in action)". According to Mulla,
"A hiba or gift is "a transfer of property, made immediately and
without any exchange," by one person to another, and accepted by
or on behalf of the latter". Whereas according to Fyzee, "Hiba" is the
immediate and unqualified transfer of the corpus of the property
without any return". According to Sir Abdul Raheem, "the
Muhammadan law defines hiba or a simple gift inter vivos as a
transfer of a determinate property without an exchange". A similar
definition is provided by Baillie, "Gift”, as it is defined in law, is the
conferring of a right of property in something specific, without an
exchange". Similarly, according to Sahih Muslim, "A Hiba is defined
as the transfer of possession of property, movable and immovable,
from one person to the other willingly and without reward". The
donor should be compos mentis, meaning thereby a person who is of
C.P.No.5972/2021
-4-
sound mind and has the mental capacity to understand the legal
implications of his act of making a gift, and he must be of age and
the owner of the property intended to be gifted; the thing gifted
should be in existence at the time of making hiba; the thing gifted
should be such that benefitting from it is lawful under the Shariat;
the donor must be free from any coercion/duress or undue
influence while making a gift; the thing gifted should come into the
possession of the donee himself or through his
representative/guardian for an effective hiba. Under the Muslim law,
the constituents and components of a valid gift are tender,
acceptance, and possession of property. It is also obligatory that the
donor divest and dissociate himself from the dominion and
ownership over the property of the gift and put into words his
categorical intention to convey the ownership to the donee distinctly
and unambiguously with the delivery of possession of the property
and ensure that donee has secured physical ascendency over the
property to constitute the delivery of possession [Ref: Abid Hussain
and others Vs Muhammad Yousaf and others (PLD 2022 SC 395)]
6. One more important aspect that cannot be lost sight of is that
respondent No.1 has two sons and four daughters, and seemingly,
there was no rhyme or reason on record to divulge why respondent
No.1 deprived his own offspring, and conveyed his attorney to gift the
property to the petitioner. A gift emanates from love and affection and
sometime it is quid pro quo personal services rendered by the donee to
the donor. Consideration like love or affection in the matter of
alienation must proceed from the original and real owner of the
property in relation to the donee; such an element if springing out
from a delegatee or agent, could not be supplanted on the principal,
not being the donor himself. Nothing is presented on record through
cogent evidence that the attorney ever asked for the permission or
consent of his principal to gift the property in question to the
petitioner; therefore, such a gift was not validated by the courts below
in three concurrent judgments. The attorney or agent may gift the
property on express permission and instructions of his principal. A
similar proposition was also dealt with by this Court in the following
dictums: -
C.P.No.5972/2021
-5-
1. Jamil Akhtar and others Vs Las Baba and others (PLD 2003 SC
494). It was held that it is a settled principle of law that whenever a
general attorney transfers the property of his principal in his even
name or in the name of his close fiduciary relations, he has to take
special permission from the principal.
2. Muhammad Ashraf and 2 others Vs Muhammad Malik and others
(PLD 2008 SC 389). There is no evidence on record to show that the
attorney before making the gift in favour of his son-in-law ever
obtained the consent and permission of the plaintiffs and sought any
approval from the real owner of the property, who even according to
the stance of the petitioners are his principals. It is a settled law by
now that if an attorney intends to exercise right of sale/gift in his
favour or in favour of next of his kin, he/she had to consult the
principal before exercising that right. The consistent view of this Court
is that if an attorney on the basis of power of attorney, even if "general"
purchases the property for himself or for his own benefit, he should
firstly obtain the consent and approval of principal after acquainting
him with all the material circumstances. Here the cases of Fida
Muhammad v. Pir Muhammad Khan (deceased) through legal heirs
and others PLD 1985 SC 341, Mst. Shumal Begum v. Mst. Gulzar
Begum and 3 others 1994 SCMR 818 and Nisar Ahmad and others v.
Naveed-ud-Din and others 2004 SCMR 619, can be referred, which are
fully applicable to the case in hand.
3. Mst. Naila Kausar and another Vs Sardar Muhammad Bakhsh and
others (2016 SCMR 1781). It is settled law that an attorney cannot
utilize the powers conferred upon him to transfer the property to
himself or to his kith and kin without special and specific consent and
permission of the principal. It is an equally settled law that the power
of attorney cannot be utilized for effecting a gift by the attorney without
intentions and directions of the principal to gift the property, which
intentions and directions must be proved on record. There is also no
specific written permission by Mst. Fatima Jan to Appellant No.2,
Sardar Muhammad Aslam to gift the property to Appellant No.1 his
daughter.
4. Allah Ditta and others Vs Manak alias Muhammad Siddique and
others (2017 SCMR 402). The Court noted that the relationship inter
se the alleged donor and the petitioners is of uncle and nephew(s). The
consideration for the gift as alleged by the respondent, that he has
been looking after the alleged donor has not been proved on the record.
It seems unnatural that a person could deprive his own children and
dole out the property to others, may be nephews. The alleged donor
had his own children, besides the mutation of transfer of immovable
property is only a manifestation of the oral transaction and it does not
carry any presumption of correctness, particularly in the
circumstances when it has been assailed by the person affected by the
same.
7. The jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Section 115 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“C.P.C.”) is to satisfy and reassure that
the order is within its jurisdiction and the Court below has not acted
illegally or in breach of some provision of law, or with material
irregularity, or by committing some error of procedure in the course of
the trial which affected the ultimate decision. Furthermore, the High
Court has very limited jurisdiction to interfere in the concurrent
conclusions arrived at by the courts below while exercising power
under Section 115, C.P.C. Here the concurrent findings of the three
C.P.No.5972/2021
-6-
courts below on a question of fact neither based on any misreading or
non-reading of evidence nor suffering from any illegality or material
irregularity affecting the merits of the case.
8. In our considered analysis, the judgment passed by the High Court
does not suffer from any misreading or non-reading of evidence nor
from any other illegality and/or irregularity. For the reasons to be
recorded later, this Civil Petition was dismissed and leave was refused
by our short order dated 24.01.2024. Above are the reasons in the aid
of our short order.
Chief Justice
Judge
Jud
Popular articles