 |
| Registered hiba cancelled. |
2026 SCMR 499: ھبہ صرف رجسٹرڈ دستاویز سے ثابت نہیں ہوتا، ایجاب، قبول اور قبضہ بھی لازمی ہیں
⚖️ حقائق مقدمہ
⚖️ سپریم کورٹ کے اہم قانونی اصول
📌 حاصلِ فیصلہ
Must read judgement.
2026 SCMR 499
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Naeem Akhter Afghan and Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, JJ
Mst. EDAN BIBI ---Petitioner
Versus
NASEEM KHAN and others ---Respondents
Civil Petition No. 1189 of 2025, decided on 22nd April, 2025.
(Against the judgment dated 27.02.2025 of the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench passed in Writ Petition No. 356-A/2022).
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)
Ss.8, 42 & 54-Suit for declaration, injunction and possession---Concurrent findings of two courts below---Scope---Wrong appreciation of evidence by courts below alleged---Petitioner was unable to e to point out as to which part of evidence was misread or ignored--The petitioner filed a civil suit seeking declaration, injunction, and possession, claiming ownership of certain properties transferred to her by her husband on the basis of a gift deed Trial Court decreed the suit, however, the appellate court partly allowed the appeal inasmuch as the transfer of the house to the petitioner in lieu of dower was upheld, but the judgment regarding the gift deed and a challenge to inheritance mutation was set aside---The revisional court concurred with this finding of the appellate court---The petitioner then filed the present petition for leave to appeal --It was the case of the petitioner that the first appellate court and the Revisional Court wrongly appreciated opreciated the evidence on record---Held: Appellate court discussed the deposition of all witnesses minutely and formed a view which had a dominant consequence as far as the appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court was concerned and maintained by the Revisional Court---The Revisional Court too, though not mandated to re-appraise the evidence, but it did not alter the findings and hence in such view of the matter it was the concurrent findings of the first appellate court and the Revisional Court which were before the Supreme Court-The appellate court and the Revisional Court discussed about the incompleteness of the gift owing to lack of offer, acceptance and delivery of possession in lieu of alleged gift---The petitioner was not able e to to point point out out as as to which part of the evidence was misread or ignored ored and had it been read it would not have passed the impugned judgments and the view formed could have been different-Since the petitioner had failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment and also failed to point out any part of evidence which was ignored or misread, the Supreme Court could not interfere in the concurrent findings of the two courts below---Petition having no merit was dismissed and leave was refused, in circumstances.
Khalid Rehman Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Anis Muhammad Shahzad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.