 |
| Oral Hiba Cancel 2026 scmr 587 |
📘 زبانی ہبہ اور میوٹیشن کی قانونی حیثیت — سپریم کورٹ کا رہنما فیصلہ (2026 SCMR 587)
⚖️ تعارف
🧾 مقدمہ کے حقائق
📌 اہم قانونی نکات
🧾 نتیجہ
Must read Judgement.
2026 SCMR 587
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Shahid Bilal Hassan and Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, JJ
ABDUL MAJEED and others ---Petitioners
Versus
Mst. KHALIDA BIBI (Deceased) through L.Rs. and others-Respondents
C.P.L.A. No. 990 of 2022, decided on 24th June, 2025.
(Against order dated 25.01.2022 passed in C.R. No. 3308 of 2022 by Lahore High Court, Lahore).
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-
Ss. 42, 54 & 55--Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), 42---Suit for declaration with perpetual and mandatory injunction-Oral gift subsequently translated into mutation---Fraud-Exclusion of sisters/respondents from their right of inheritance---Essential ingredients of gift-Proof-Non-mentioning of necessary details to offer and acceptance of gift in the written statement or evidence Effect Evidence beyond the scope of pleadings Admissibility Suit of respondents/plaintiffs was decreed, however, the appeal and revision filed by the petitioners/defendants were dismissed by the Appellate and Revisional Court, respectively.... Validity-Basic ingredients of a valid gift are: offer, acceptance and delivery of possession---No descriptions of making of offer as to gifting out of the disputed property to the petitioners by the donor, acceptance thereof by them, venue and names of witnesses. in whose presence such transaction took place, had been given, which were necessary to be pleaded and proved Even the same had not been deposed during evidence either by the petitioners or their witnesses A party cannot lead any evidence beyond its pleadings---No illegality was found in the impugned judgment rendered by the High Court as well as judgments and decrees passed by the trial and first Appellate Court warranting interference by Supreme Court---Thus, no case for grant of leave was made out-Leave was refused, in circumstances.
Bilal Hussain Shah and another v. Dilawar Shah PLD 2018 SC 698; Khalid Hussain and others v. Nazir Ahmad and others 2021 SCMR 1986; Mst. Ramzanu Bibi v. Ibrahim (deceased) through L.Rs. and others 2025 SCMR 955: Zulfiqar and others v. Shahdat Khan PLD 2007 SC 582; Muhammad Nawaz alias Nawaza and others v. Member Judicial Board of Revenue and others 2014 SCMR 914: Combined Investment (Pvt.) Limited v. Wali Bhai and others PLD 2016 SC 730 and Saddaruddin (since deceased) through LRs. v. Sultan Khan (since deceased) through LRs and others 2021 SCMR 642 rel.
(b) Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)-
S. 42(7)-Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)-Oral gift---Mutation---Independent transactions having two part---Burden of proof-Failure of the petitioners/donees to prove transactions of gift and mutation independently being beneficiary thereof---Effect-Petitioners instead of proving the gift and mutation thriving on the shortcomings of the evidence of respondents-Held: Oral gift has two parts ie.firstly the fact of the oral gift which has to be independently established by proving through cogent and reliable evidence the three necessary ingredients of a valid gift, and secondly mutation on the basis of an oral gift has to be independently established and proved by adopting procedure provided in the Land Revenue Act, 1967, as well as the evidentiary aspects of the same in terms of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Petitioners could not lead any cogent, strong, unimpeachable and confidence inspiring evidence with regards to first part of alleged oral gift-Petitioners could not produce the stamp vendor, scribe, marginal witnesses, identifying witness, sub-registrar and revenue officials as well as Patwari, meaning thereby the best available evidence was withheld by the petitioners, which raised a serious adverse presumption under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984-Matters pertained to inheritable property, so the petitioners being alleged donees were under heavy burden to prove valid execution of oral gift because he could not take benefit from the shortcomings in the evidence of respondents, rather he had to stand on his own legs-Leave to appeal was refused, in circumstances.
Mushtaq Ul Aarifin and others v. Mumtaz Muhammad and others 2022 SCMR 55; Mst. Parveen (deceased) through L.ks. v. Muhammad Pervaiz and others 2022 SCMR 64; Mst. Hayat Rihi and others v. Alamzeh and others 2022 SCMR 13, Bashir Ahmed v. Muhammad Rafiq 2002 SCMR 1291; Muhammad Sarwar v. Mumtaz Bibi and others 2020 SCMR 276; Muhammad Nawaz and others v. Sakina Bibi and others 2020 SCMR 1021; Atta Muhammad and others v. Mst. Munir Sultan (deceased) through her LRs and others 2021 SCMR 73 and Farhan Aslam and others v. Mst. Nuzba Shaheen and another 2021 SCMR 179 rel.
(c) Gift--
Mutation-Failure of donees to assign reasons prompting the donor to gift out the property to exclusion of female/daughters---Effect-No reason prompting the donor to gift out the disputed property to the petitioners, excluding his daughters (lawful heirs), had been impleaded, asserted and proved by the petitioners in their pleadings (written statement) and evidence --- It is rare for a gift to be made without some reasons like affection or in reward of some sincere service. Barkat Ali v. Muhammad Ismail 2002 SCMR 1938 and Faqir Ali and others v. Saina Bibi and others PLD 2022 SC 85 rel. Ajmal Raza Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.