 |
| زبانی ھبہ مالکان نے |
زبانی ہبہ ثابت کرنے کے لیے صرف انتقال کافی نہیں — لاہور ہائیکورٹ کا اہم فیصلہ (2026 LHC 3792)
📌 تعارف
پاکستان میں جائیداد کے تنازعات میں زبانی ہبہ (Oral Gift) سے متعلق مقدمات کثرت سے سامنے آتے ہیں۔ اکثر یہ تصور کیا جاتا ہے کہ اگر ریونیو ریکارڈ میں انتقالِ ہبہ درج ہو جائے تو ملکیت بھی منتقل ہو جاتی ہے، مگر لاہور ہائیکورٹ نے اپنے حالیہ فیصلے 2026 LHC 3792 میں اس تصور کی وضاحت کرتے ہوئے اہم قانونی اصول بیان کیے ہیں۔
⚖️ مقدمے کے مختصر حقائق
درخواست گزار بوڑھے اور ناخواندہ زرعی اراضی کے مالکان تھے۔ انہوں نے مؤقف اختیار کیا کہ انہوں نے اپنی بیٹی کے حق میں کبھی زبانی ہبہ نہیں کیا اور نہ ہی جائیداد منتقل کرنے کا ارادہ تھا۔ ان کے مطابق بیٹی نے محکمہ مال کے بعض اہلکاروں سے ملی بھگت کر کے جعلی انتقالِ ہبہ منظور کروایا۔
🏛️ ٹرائل کورٹ اور اپیلیٹ کورٹ کے فیصلے
ٹرائل کورٹ نے شواہد کا جائزہ لینے کے بعد انتقالِ ہبہ کو کالعدم قرار دے دیا۔ تاہم اپیلیٹ کورٹ نے یہ کہتے ہوئے فیصلہ تبدیل کر دیا کہ چونکہ مالکان نے انتقال پر اپنے دستخط اور انگوٹھوں کے نشانات کا اعتراف کیا ہے، اس لیے دھوکہ دہی ثابت نہیں ہوئی۔
✅ لاہور ہائیکورٹ نے کیا قرار دیا؟
لاہور ہائیکورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ محض انتقالِ ہبہ کا اندراج کسی شخص کو جائیداد کا مالک نہیں بناتا، کیونکہ انتقال صرف ریونیو ریکارڈ ہوتا ہے، سندِ ملکیت نہیں۔ جب اصل مالک ہبہ سے انکار کرے تو ہبہ سے فائدہ اٹھانے والے پر لازم ہے کہ وہ ہبہ کے تمام قانونی ارکان معتبر شہادت سے ثابت کرے۔
📜 زبانی ہبہ کے لازمی ارکان
عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ زبانی ہبہ کی صحت ثابت کرنے کے لیے درج ذیل تین بنیادی عناصر کا ثابت ہونا ضروری ہے:
- ایجاب (Offer)
- قبول (Acceptance)
- قبضہ کی حوالگی (Delivery of Possession)
ان عناصر کے بغیر زبانی ہبہ قانونی طور پر مکمل نہیں سمجھا جا سکتا۔
📑 انتقالِ ہبہ کی قانونی حیثیت
عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ صرف انتقال، دستخط یا انگوٹھے کے نشان کا اعتراف جائیداد کی قانونی منتقلی کا ثبوت نہیں بنتا۔ ہبہ کے تمام بنیادی حقائق کو آزاد اور قابلِ اعتماد شہادت سے ثابت کرنا ضروری ہے۔
⚠️ ثبوت کا بوجھ کس پر ہوتا ہے؟
عدالت کے مطابق ثبوت کا بوجھ ہمیشہ اسی شخص پر ہوتا ہے جو زبانی ہبہ کا دعویٰ کرتا ہے۔ اسے ہبہ کی تاریخ، وقت، مقام، حالات، گواہان، قبولیت اور قبضے کی منتقلی سمیت تمام ضروری حقائق ثابت کرنا ہوں گے۔
👨⚖️ آرٹیکل 129(g) قانونِ شہادت کا اطلاق
عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ اگر انتقال کی تصدیق کے وقت موجود متعلقہ ریونیو اہلکار یا اہم گواہ عدالت میں پیش نہ کیے جائیں تو قانونِ شہادت کے آرٹیکل 129(g) کے تحت دعویٰ کرنے والے کے خلاف منفی قرینہ (Adverse Inference) لیا جا سکتا ہے۔
❌ اپیلیٹ کورٹ کی قانونی غلطیاں
ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ اپیلیٹ کورٹ نے شواہد کو درست انداز میں نہیں پڑھا، درخواست گزاروں کے وضاحتی بیانات اور خسرہ گرداوری جیسے اہم ریکارڈ کو نظر انداز کیا، جبکہ صرف انتقال کو غلط طور پر سندِ ملکیت سمجھ لیا، جو شواہد کی غلط خوانی (Misreading and Non-reading of Evidence) کے مترادف ہے۔
⚖️ قانونی اصول (Ratio Decidendi)
زبانی ہبہ کا دعویٰ کرنے والے مستفید کنندہ پر لازم ہے کہ وہ ایجاب، قبول اور قبضہ کی حوالگی سمیت ہبہ کے تمام بنیادی ارکان کو معتبر شہادت سے ثابت کرے۔ محض انتقال، دستخط یا والدین کی محبت جائیداد کی قانونی منتقلی ثابت کرنے کے لیے کافی نہیں۔
📝 نتیجہ
یہ فیصلہ زبانی ہبہ سے متعلق پاکستانی قانون میں ایک اہم نظیر ہے، جو واضح کرتا ہے کہ صرف ریونیو ریکارڈ پر انحصار نہیں کیا جا سکتا بلکہ ہبہ کے تمام قانونی تقاضوں کو مضبوط اور قابلِ اعتماد شہادت سے ثابت کرنا ضروری ہے۔
📚 حوالہ
2026 LHC 3792
C.R. No. 48819 of 2021
Ghulam Muhammad & others v. Mst. Shahida Parveen, etc.
Must read judgement.
Stereo. H C J D A-38.
JUDGMENT SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Civil Revision No.48819 of 2021
Ghulam Muhammad & another
Versus
Mst. Shahida Parveen
J U D G M E N T
Date of hearing: 11.06.2026.
Petitioners by:
Sh. Sakhawat Ali, Advocate.
Respondent by:
Mr. Fida Hussain Rana, Advocate.
MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, J.- The
petitioners, through the instant civil revision petition, have called in
question the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated
09.07.2021 passed by the learned Additional District Judge,
Faisalabad, whereby the appeal preferred by respondent Mst. Shahida
Parveen was accepted, the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2020
passed by the learned Civil Judge, Faisalabad were set aside, and the
suit instituted by the petitioners was dismissed.
2.
Briefly stated, the petitioners are the admitted original owners of
agricultural land measuring 19 Kanals and 17 Marlas situated in Chak
No.78/J.B, Tehsil Sadar, District Faisalabad, detailed in the plaint.
Their case before the learned Trial Court was that they are elderly and
uneducated villagers having three daughters including the respondent.
According to them, they never executed any oral gift in favour of the
respondent, never intended to divest themselves of their ownership
rights, and never voluntarily appeared before any competent revenue
authority for attestation of mutation No.1819 dated 27.04.2010
purportedly sanctioning an oral gift in favour of the respondent. They
alleged that the respondent, in connivance with the revenue staff,
fraudulently procured the said mutation and that they came to know of
2
C.R. No.48819 of 2021
the same only shortly before institution of the suit. The respondent
contested the suit by asserting that the petitioners, out of natural love
and affection, had voluntarily gifted the suit property to her, delivered
possession thereof and appeared before the revenue authorities to
verify the transaction.
The learned Trial Court, after framing issues, recording evidence
and hearing the parties, decreed the suit vide judgment and decree
dated 12.12.2020, holding that the respondent had failed to establish a
valid oral gift in accordance with law. However, the learned Appellate
Court reversed the said findings primarily on the premise that the
petitioners had admitted their signatures/thumb impressions on the
mutation proceedings and had failed to prove the particulars of the
alleged fraud. Hence, the instant revision petition.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the learned
Appellate Court committed grave illegality and material irregularity in
exercise of jurisdiction by reversing a well-reasoned judgment without
properly appreciating the evidence available on record. He argues that
the learned Appellate Court erroneously shifted the burden of proof
upon the petitioners despite the fact that the respondent was claiming
title through an alleged oral gift which stood categorically denied by
the original owners. He maintains that a mutation entry is not a
document of title and cannot independently establish a valid gift,
particularly when the essential ingredients of offer, acceptance and
delivery of possession were neither pleaded with requisite particulars
nor proved through reliable evidence. He further submits that the
learned Appellate Court misread the statements of the petitioners by
relying only upon isolated admissions regarding signatures and thumb
impressions while completely ignoring their explanation that they were
unaware of the true nature of the transaction. He further submits that
the certified copies of Khasra Girdawari produced by the petitioners
clearly demonstrated their continued possession over the suit property
long after the alleged gift, yet such documentary evidence was ignored
altogether. Lastly, he argues that the respondent withheld the most
material witnesses, namely the concerned revenue officials, and the
3
C.R. No.48819 of 2021
learned Trial Court rightly drew an adverse inference against her,
which aspect was also ignored by the learned Appellate Court. In
support, he has relied upon Noor Muhammad and others v. Mst.
Azmat-e-Bibi (2012 SCMR 1373), Mrs. Khalida Azhar v. Viqar
Rustam Bakhshi and others (2018 SCMR 30) and Muhammad Sarwar
v. Mumtaz Bibi and others (2020 SCMR 276).
4.
Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent supports the
impugned judgment and contends that once the petitioners admitted
their signatures/thumb impressions on the mutation proceedings, a
strong presumption of correctness attached to the revenue record and
the burden shifted upon them to establish fraud. He adds that the
learned Appellate Court rightly appreciated the evidence and no
ground for interference in revisional jurisdiction is made out.
5.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having
examined the record with their assistance, it appears that the
controversy essentially revolves around the validity of the oral gift
allegedly made in favour of the respondent and the legality of the
reversal of the Trial Court’s findings by the learned Appellate Court.
The principal questions requiring determination are: (i) whether the
respondent successfully established a valid oral gift in accordance with
the Muslim Personal Law; (ii) whether mutation No.1819 dated
27.04.2010, by itself, constituted proof of title; and (iii) whether the
findings recorded by the learned Appellate Court suffer from
misreading or non-reading of evidence. These questions are examined
in the light of the settled principles governing proof of Hiba under
Muslim Law and the evidentiary value of the revenue entries.
6.
The respondent claims exclusive ownership of the entire suit
property through an oral gift allegedly made by the petitioners. Such a
claim, by its very nature, imposes a heavy burden upon the
beneficiary. It is settled law that a mutation entry neither creates nor
extinguishes title; revenue entries are maintained primarily for fiscal
purposes and do not, by themselves, confer proprietary rights. Where
a gift is specifically denied by the donor and challenged before a
Court of law, the beneficiary cannot merely rely upon a mutation
4
C.R. No.48819 of 2021
entry and must independently establish all essential ingredients of a
valid gift; the burden never shifts merely because a mutation has been
sanctioned or because the donor admits signatures on the mutation.
Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment of the august
Supreme Court in Khaliqdad Khan and others v. Mst. Zeenat Khatoon
and others (2010 SCMR 1370), wherein the relevant observations are
as follows:
“7.
…It is settled law that it is the duty and obligation of the
beneficiary to prove the mutations by producing evidence in
accordance with the accepted principles and in terms of Qanun-eShahadat Order, 1984. Otherwise, it does not create any title. The
judgment of the Lahore High Court is in consonance with the law
laid down by this Court in various pronouncements according to
which onus of proof of transaction embodies in mutation is
essentially upon the beneficiary and onus to prove voluntary
execution of gift upon beneficiary of gift as well as to establish that
transaction was the result of conscious application of mind by donor
and not under influence of fraud played with him…”
The principle was reaffirmed by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan
in Mst. Ramzanu Bibi v. Ibrahim (deceased) through L.Rs. and others
(2025 SCMR 955), in the following terms:
“8.
…The mutation, as stated above, does not confer title in
favour of any party but constitutes merely an official record for
fiscal purposes. As such, its illegal approval by the revenue
officer had no bearing on the appellant's title and could be treated
as a nullity…”
The learned Appellate Court attached undue significance to the
petitioners' admission of signatures/thumb impressions and treated the
mutation proceedings almost as conclusive proof of title. In doing so, it
overlooked the settled distinction between a fiscal entry and a legally
enforceable transfer of ownership. The existence of a mutation could at
best corroborate an independently proved transaction; it could never
substitute proof of the transaction itself. Question (ii) is, accordingly,
answered in negative.
8.
The respondent was, therefore, required to establish all essential
ingredients of a valid gift under Muslim Personal Law, namely: (i) a
clear declaration of gift by the donor; (ii) acceptance thereof by the
donee; and (iii) delivery of possession. A careful examination of the
5
C.R. No.48819 of 2021
pleadings and evidence further reveals that the respondent failed to
establish these essential ingredients of a valid oral gift under Muslim
Law. Neither in the written statement nor in the evidence was there
any satisfactory disclosure regarding the exact date, place and
circumstances of the alleged declaration of gift, its acceptance or the
manner in which possession was delivered, particulars that were
necessary to plead and prove. Reliance is placed upon the decision of
the august Supreme Court rendered in Abdul Majeed and others v.
Mst. Khalida Bibi (Deceased) through L.Rs. and others (2026
SCMR 587), wherein it was held:
“4. The basic ingredients for a valid gift are: offer, acceptance
and delivery of possession. In the present case, reply to
paragraph No.2 of the plaint by the present petitioner(s) in their
written statement deals with the purported gift made by the
deceased Imdad Ali, propositus, in favour of
petitioners/defendants. For ease of reference, the same is
reproduced in verbatim as under:-
ہی ہک نمض ربمن2رعیض دوعی طلغ ےہ۔ درتس میلست ہن ےہ ذٰہلا ااکنری ےہ۔ ومرث اٰیلع دمیع ادماد یلع ےن
اینپ زدنیگ ںیم یہ ارایض دتموعہی دماع مہیلع ےک انم ربوےئ ررٹسجڈ کیلمت ربمنی 162/1 ومرہخ
27-22-1992ررٹسجڈ کیلمت ربمن 921/1ومرہخ21-09-1993کیلمت وہ یکچ ےہ اور تحت ررٹسجڈ
کیلمت قحب دماع مہیلع ااقتنالت ربمنی 835دصمہق ومرہخ 27-02-1992اور ااقتنل ربمن 884ومرہخ
19-01-1994 وہ ےکچ ںیہ اور ایس ےک تحت دماع مہیلع ارایض دتموعہی رپ تیثیحب امکل و اقضب رصتمف
ںیہ۔
Bare reading of the above excerpt goes to make it vivid and
divulges that no description of making of offer as to gifting out of
the disputed property to the petitioner(s) by deceased Imdad Ali,
acceptance of the same by them (petitioners), venue and names
of witnesses in whose presence such transaction took place, has
been given, which are necessary to be pleaded and proved, even
the same have not been deposed during evidence either by the
petitioners or their witnesses because a party cannot lead any
evidence beyond its pleadings…”
Applying the same standard, the respondent’s pleadings and evidence
in the present case suffer from the identical deficiency: she nowhere
specified when, where, or in whose presence the gift was made and
accepted, or how possession was delivered. The respondent has also
conflated the date of attestation of the mutation with the date of the
gift, which is legally impermissible, a mutation entry cannot cure
deficiencies in proof of the substantive transaction upon which it is
6
C.R. No.48819 of 2021
found. The learned Trial Court rightly noticed these deficiencies but
the learned Appellate Court failed to address them in proper legal
perspective. Question (i) is, accordingly answered in the negative.
9.
The learned Appellate Court also appears to have fallen into
error while appreciating the cross-examination of the petitioners. A
reading of the evidence as a whole shows that although the petitioners
admitted their presence before the revenue authorities and
acknowledged their signatures/thumb impressions, they simultaneously
explained that they were not aware that any gift transaction was being
recorded and were led to believe that they were merely obtaining
copies of documents. The learned Appellate Court isolated one part of
the testimony while ignoring the explanatory portion thereof. Such
selective reading of evidence constitutes a classic instance of
misreading and non-reading of material evidence. Testimony must
always be read as a whole and not in disconnected fragments.
10. Another significant aspect of the case relates to possession.
Delivery of possession is one of the indispensable ingredients of a
valid gift. The petitioners produced certified copies of Khasra
Girdawari reflecting their continued cultivation and possession over
the suit property even after the alleged mutation of 2010. These public
documents carried substantial evidentiary value and directly touched
upon the question whether possession had ever passed to the
respondent. Strikingly, the learned Appellate Court neither discussed
these documents in any meaningful manner nor assigned reasons for
discarding them. Such omission assumes greater significance because
the respondent failed to produce any convincing documentary evidence
demonstrating her exclusive possession of the suit property.
11. The learned Trial Court had also drawn an adverse inference
against the respondent for withholding the most material witnesses
available to her, namely the concerned Patwari and other revenue
officials associated with the attestation of the mutation. The challenge
before the Court was not merely to the correctness of the mutation
entry but to the very transaction underlying it. In such circumstances,
the testimony of the revenue officials assumed considerable
C.R. No.48819 of 2021
importance. The respondent's failure to produce such material
witnesses justified the drawing of an adverse presumption under
Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The learned
Appellate Court completely ignored this aspect while reversing the
judgment of the learned Trial Court. On this evidence, and for the
reasons set out in paragraphs 6 to 9 above, question (iii) is also
answered in the negative, the impugned appellate judgment suffers
from misreading and non-reading of material evidence.
12. The reasoning adopted by the learned Appellate Court that
parental affection towards the respondent furnished support to the
alleged gift is equally untenable. An expression of love and affection,
even if admitted, does not establish a valid transfer of ownership of
valuable agricultural land. Such an inference is speculative and cannot
substitute proof of the essential legal ingredients required for
completion of a gift. The record further reflects that the alleged
transaction would have the effect of excluding the petitioners' other
daughters altogether, a circumstance which demanded careful judicial
scrutiny rather than assumptions based upon subjective considerations.
13. Although the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section
115, C.P.C. is limited in scope, interference is warranted where the
subordinate Court has acted with material irregularity in the exercise of
jurisdiction, misapplied settled principles of law, or recorded findings
suffering from misreading or non-reading of material evidence. The
impugned appellate judgment suffers from all these defects. The
learned Appellate Court ignored material documentary evidence,
misread oral testimony, treated a mutation as a document of title, failed
to appreciate the legal requirements governing an oral gift, and
reversed a well-reasoned judgment of the learned Trial Court without
any lawful basis. The impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be
sustained.
14. The learned Trial Court, on the other hand, properly appreciated
the evidence available on record, correctly allocated the burden of
proof, examined the legal requirements of a valid gift, considered the
documentary evidence relating to possession, and rightly drew an
C.R. No.48819 of 2021
adverse inference against the respondent for withholding material
witnesses. Its conclusions are fully supported by the record and do not
suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference.
15. Consequently, this civil revision petition is allowed. The
judgment and decree dated 09.07.2021 passed by the learned
Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, are set aside, while the
judgment and decree dated 12.12.2020 passed by the learned Civil
Judge, Faisalabad, are restored and upheld.
(Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi)
Judge
APPROVED FOR REPORTING
Judge