 |
| Oral gift 2026 scmr 587 |
زبانی ھبہ (Oral Gift) ثابت نہ ہونے پر سپریم کورٹ نے بہنوں کا وراثتی حق بحال کر دیا
2026 SCMR 587
مختصر کہانی
ایک شخص کے انتقال کے بعد اس کے بیٹوں نے دعویٰ کیا کہ والد نے زندگی میں متنازعہ جائیداد انہیں زبانی ھبہ کر دی تھی اور بعد میں اس کی انتقالِ ھبہ
(Mutation)
بھی درج ہو گئی تھی۔ بہنوں نے دعویٰ دائر کیا کہ یہ کارروائی فراڈ پر مبنی تھی اور انہیں وراثت سے محروم کرنے کے لیے کی گئی۔ ٹرائل کورٹ، اپیلٹ کورٹ اور لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے بہنوں کے حق میں فیصلہ دیا، جسے سپریم کورٹ نے بھی برقرار رکھتے ہوئے اپیل کی اجازت دینے سے انکار کر دیا۔
اہم نکات
👉 سپریم کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ زبانی ھبہ کے لیے ایجاب (Offer)، قبولیت (Acceptance) اور قبضہ کی منتقلی (Delivery of Possession) تینوں عناصر کا ثابت ہونا ضروری ہے۔
👉 مدعا علیہان اپنے تحریری جواب اور شہادت میں یہ نہیں بتا سکے کہ ھبہ کب، کہاں، کس کے سامنے اور کس طریقے سے ہوا، لہٰذا ھبہ ثابت نہ ہو سکا۔
👉 عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ کوئی فریق اپنی درخواست یا جواب دعویٰ سے ہٹ کر شہادت پیش نہیں کر سکتا۔
👉 زبانی ھبہ اور اس کی بنیاد پر درج ہونے والا انتقال دو الگ معاملات ہیں، دونوں کو علیحدہ علیحدہ مضبوط شہادت سے ثابت کرنا ضروری ہے۔
👉 مبینہ موہوب لہم
(Donees)
بہترین دستیاب شہادت مثلاً گواہوں، محرر، پٹواری اور ریونیو حکام کو پیش نہ کر سکے، جس پر عدالت نے منفی قرینہ
(Adverse Presumption)
لیا۔
👉 وراثتی جائیداد میں بیٹیوں کو محروم کر کے صرف بیٹوں کے حق میں ھبہ کا دعویٰ کیا جائے تو اس کی سخت جانچ پڑتال کی جائے گی۔
👉 سپریم کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ جب بیٹیوں کو وراثت سے خارج کیا جا رہا ہو تو مدعا علیہان پر بھاری بوجھِ ثبوت ہوتا ہے کہ وہ ھبہ کو ناقابلِ تردید شہادت سے ثابت کریں۔
👉 عدالت نے یہ بھی کہا کہ عام طور پر کوئی شخص اپنی بیٹیوں کو محروم کر کے جائیداد ھبہ کرتا ہے تو اس کی کوئی معقول وجہ، محبت یا خدمت کا پس منظر موجود ہوتا ہے، جسے ثابت کرنا ضروری ہے۔
قانونی اصول
زبانی ھبہ ثابت کرنے کے لیے صرف انتقال کافی نہیں، بلکہ یہ بھی ثابت کرنا لازم ہے کہ:
- ھبہ کی پیشکش (Offer) ہوئی۔
- ھبہ قبول کیا گیا۔
- جائیداد کا قبضہ منتقل کیا گیا۔
- انتقال قانون کے مطابق درج ہوا۔
- تمام حقائق قابلِ اعتماد شہادت سے ثابت کیے گئے۔
Must read Judgment.
2026 S C M R 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 as 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 i.e.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 LRs. v.
Muhammad Pervaiz and others 2022 SCMR 64;
Mst. Hayat Bibi and others v. Alamzeb 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.