Oral Hiba Case Involving Inherited Propert.
 |
Dismissal of Appeal in Oral Hiba Case Involving Inherited Property |
زبانی ھبہ کے دعوے میں اپیل مسترد ہونے کی وجوہات
-
ثبوت فراہم کرنے میں ناکامی – مدعا علیہان (بھائی) یہ ثابت نہ کر سکے کہ ان کی بہنوں، بشمول مدعیہ، نے اپنی وراثتی زمین کا حصہ رضاکارانہ طور پر ھبہ کیا تھا۔
-
آزاد گواہان کی عدم موجودگی –
- کوئی آزاد گواہ پیش نہیں کیا گیا جو زبانی ھبہ کی تصدیق کر سکے۔
- صرف ایک مدعا علیہ (جو خود مستفید تھا) بطور دفاعی گواہ پیش ہوا۔
-
قانونِ شہادت 1984 کی خلاف ورزی –
- آرٹیکل 79: متنازعہ انتقال (میوٹیشن) کو ثابت کرنے کے لیے کم از کم دو گواہان کی ضرورت تھی، جو پیش نہیں کیے گئے۔
- آرٹیکلز 119 اور 120: زبانی ھبہ کو ثابت کرنے کے لیے قابلِ اعتبار ثبوت درکار تھا، جو فراہم نہیں کیا گیا۔
-
بیانات میں تضاد –
- مدعیہ (بہن) نے اپنے حصے کی منتقلی سے انکار کیا اور انتقال کی منسوخی کے لیے مقدمہ دائر کیا۔
- ایک اور بہن نے جرح کے دوران اعتراف کیا کہ وہ زبردستی عدالت میں پیش ہوئی، جس سے جبر و اکراہ ثابت ہوتا ہے۔
-
انتقال (میوٹیشن) کا قانونی نقائص سے بھرپور ہونا –
- انتقال میں وقت، تاریخ، مقام، اور گواہوں کی تفصیلات درج نہیں تھیں۔
-
رضامندی ثابت کرنے میں ناکامی – اگر مدعیہ نے واقعی اپنی زمین کا حصہ ھبہ کیا ہوتا تو وہ اس کے خلاف مقدمہ دائر نہ کرتی۔
عدالتی فیصلہ:
✅ مدعا علیہان زبانی ھبہ کے درست نفاذ کو ثابت نہ کر سکے۔
✅ انتقال کو غیر قانونی قرار دیا گیا۔
✅ اپیل ناقابلِ سماعت قرار دے کر مسترد کر دی گئی۔
Must read judgement
Citation Name : 2024 YLR 615 ISLAMABAD Side Appellant : ALLAH DITTA Side Opponent : Mst. QUDRAT BIBI Arts. 79, 119 & 120---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.42, 39 & 54---Oral gift---Proof---Suit for declaration, cancellation of mutation, mandatory and permanent injunction---Brothers attempting to deprive sister from her share in inherited property---Plaintiff (sister) claimed that the defendants/appellants (brothers) in collusion with the revenue officials, got transferred the subject land in their own name vide impugned mutation and deprived the plaintiff from her share in the inherited property---Validity---Appellants virtually asserted that the transfer of the shares by their sisters including respondent No.1 in their favour was indeed a gift/hiba , which could not be revoked at any stage---In order to prove the fact as to gifting of the suit land in the appellant's favour, the appellants were under an obligation to prove such fact by adducing sufficient evidence inspiring confidence in terms of Arts. 119 & 120 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Appellants could not produce any independent witness in order to prove the fact regarding voluntarily transferring of the shares of the inherited land by their sisters including respondent No. 1 through mutation in question---No one except appellant No.2, who was indeed a beneficiary of the mutation in question, appeared as defence witness---Although the appellants' sister appeared as defence witness but she showed her inability and ignorance regarding her appearance before the revenue authorities---Said defence witness also did not know the quantum of the land which her father left behind---Appellants placed their case on the impugned mutation, which itself endorsed the fact that it was a hiba mutation---In order to prove the execution of such a mutation and/or its attestation, at least two attesting witnesses were required to have been produced in terms of Art. 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Appellants could not produce two attesting witnesses of the impugned mutation---Appellants only produced the son of the Lumberdar as defence witness, who just identified the signatures of his late father---Since the impugned mutation did not take place in the presence of said witness, hence said witness could not be termed to be an attesting witness of the same---Thus, the evidence of said witness led no support to the appellants' case---Appellants claimed that all the three sisters including respondent No. 1 with their free will and consent transferred their shares in the appellants' favour---Had respondent No.1 transferred her share in the appellants' favour, she being a donor could not have instituted a civil suit against the appellants/donees praying inter alia for cancellation of the impugned mutation---Appellants' other sister also categorically admitted during the course of cross-examination that she came to the Court under compulsion, meaning thereby, her statement was procured without her will and consent---Said factors negated the appellants' version that the mutation in question had validly and lawfully been made---Record revealed that no particulars whatsoever of the time, date, place and witnesses of the declaration made by respondent No.1 regarding the said transfer of the suit land in favour of the appellants had been provided by the appellants in their written statement--- Record further suggested that no evidence with respect to such a declaration could be produced by the appellants during the trial---Appeal being devoid of any merit was accordingly dismissed.