Hiba & possession | . The Lahore High Court rejected the validity of the Heba on the ground of fraud and possession (essential element) and restored the judgment of the trial court. 2017 C L C Note 57 LHR
درخواست گزار اپنے والد کے تحفے کے خط کے تحت جائیداد کے مالک ہونے کا دعویٰ کر رہے تھے، جبکہ مدعا علیہ نے دھوکہ دہی کا الزام لگایا اور تحفے کی منسوخی کی درخواست دی۔
کیس کا مختصر خلاصہ: Mst. Gulshan Bibi اور دیگر بمقابلہ Haji Iftikhar Ahmad Qureshi اور دیگر
یہ کیس 2017 C L C نوٹ 57 میں لاہور ہائی کورٹ (راولپنڈی بنچ) نے سنایا۔
1. پس منظر:
درخواست گزار اپنے والد کے تحفے کے خط کے تحت جائیداد کے مالک ہونے کا دعویٰ کر رہے تھے، جبکہ مدعا علیہ نے دھوکہ دہی کا الزام لگایا اور تحفے کی منسوخی کی درخواست دی۔
2. ٹرائل عدالت کا فیصلہ:
عدالت نے مدعا علیہ کے حق میں فیصلہ دیا، جس کے بعد اپیلیٹ عدالت نے درخواست گزاروں کی اپیلیں قبول کرلیں۔
3. اہم نکات:
عدالت نے دھوکہ دہی کو سنگین قرار دیا اور کہا کہ تحفے کے ثبوت کے لیے سکرائب اور گواہوں کی موجودگی ضروری ہے۔
تحفے کی قانونی حیثیت کے لیے قبضے کی ترسیل بھی ضروری ہے، بغیر قبضے کے تحفہ کالعدم ہے۔
4. نتیجہ:
ہائی کورٹ نے اپیلیٹ عدالت کے فیصلے کو کالعدم قرار دیتے ہوئے ٹرائل عدالت کے فیصلے کو برقرار رکھا، اور درخواست گزاروں کو ان کے دعووں میں ناکام قرار دیا۔
یہ کیس تحفے کی درستگی کے لیے شواہد اور قانونی اصولوں کی اہمیت کو اجاگر کرتا ہے۔ اگر مزید معلومات چاہیے تو بتائیں!
 |
| Hiba and possession |
2017 C L C Note 57 LHR
Must read judgement
2017 C L C Note 57
[Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench)]
Before Masud Abid Naqvi, J
Mst. GULSHAN BIBI and 2 others---Petitioners
Versus
Haji IFTIKHAR AHMAD QURESHI and 3 others---Respondents
Civil Revision No.835-D of 2001, heard on 2nd March, 2015.
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---
----Ss. 9, 39, 42 & 54----Suit for declaration, possession, cancellation of document and
injunction---Gift---Authenticity of---Plea of fraud---One of the plaintiffs filed suit for
possession through partition and recovery of rent claiming himself to be owner-inpossession of share in suit property along with his brothers on basis of gift deed which
their father had allegedly executed in their favour; defendants denied said claim
contending that gift deed was result of fraud and meant to deprive them from their
share, they also filed suit for declaration, cancellation of the gift deed and permanent
injunction claiming that they were owners-in-possession of suit property along with
other defendants being legal heirs of deceased and the gift was got registered
fraudulently in collusion with revenue authorities---Trial Court, after consolidation of
both the suits and recording evidence, decreed the suit of defendants and directed the
plaintiffs to implead them in his suit---Plaintiffs filed appeals against judgments and
decrees of the Trial Court which were accepted---Contention raised by defendants was
that findings of appellate court were based on misreading and non-reading of evidence
and were against the law and facts---Validity---Gift deed was challenged on basis of
fraud---Defendants, having received information regarding existence of said gift,
claimed ownership of suit property challenging validity of the gift---Limitation would
start from date of knowledge and not from date of fraud---Fraud vitiates even the most
solemn proceedings---Disputed gift deed was attempt to deprive all female members of
deceased without any reason or justification---No cogent evidence existed to prove the
disputed gift deed---Consolidated judgments and decrees of appellate court were not
sustainable in law and was result of misreading and non-reading of evidence and
suffered from legal infirmity---High Court, setting aside consolidated judgments and
decrees of appellate court, upheld that of Trial Court. [Paras. 10, 11 & 12 of the
judgment]
Khair Din v. Mst. Salaman and others PLD 2002 SC 677 and Barkat Ali through Legal
Heirs and others v. Mohammad Ismail through Legal Heirs and others 2002 SCMR
1938 rel.
(b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---
----Arts. 72, 78, 79 & 84----Execution of document---Proof---Onus---Scope---Disputed
gift---Neither scribe nor marginal witnesses of disputed gift deed and stamp vendor
were produced and examined to prove validity of alleged gift deed---Effect---Onus of
proof of factum and genuineness of disputed gift deed was on the beneficiary of gift---
Beneficiaries were duty bound and heavy onus lay on them to prove by convincing
evidence satisfying judicial conscience of court that transaction shown to be a gift was
executed by the donor in favour of the donees---Valid gift could be effected orally or
through registered gift deed, but mere registration of the same was not proof of its
execution if any of the parties had denied its execution---When a document was
required by law to be attested, that should not have been used as evidence until two
attesting witnesses had been called for proving the execution---Factum and
genuineness of the gift was not proved in circumstances. [Paras. 7 & 9 of the
judgment]
Mst. Rashida Bibi and others v. Mukhtar Ahmad and others 2008 SCMR 1384; Mst.
Nagina Begum v. Mst. Tahzim Akhtar and others 2009 SCMR 623 and Mohammad
Ashraf v. Imam Bakhsh and 6 other 2007 MLD 50 rel.
(c) Islamic law---
----Gift---Essential ingredients---Delivery of possession---Gift by a Muslim would be
complete, if three necessary and inseparable ingredients were proved (offer by donor;
acceptance of offer by donee and delivery of possession under the gift)---Delivery of
possession was an essential ingredient to constitute a valid gift and gift without
possession was void ab initio. [Para. 8 of the judgment]
Muhammad Yaqoob through Legal Heirs v. Feroza Khan and others 2003 SCMR 41
rel.
Malik Ali Raza for Petitioners.
Pirzada Usman Ali Usmani for Respondent No.1.
Raja Muhammad Aslam for Respondents Nos. 2 to 4.