Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑248 of 1974, decided on 7th March 1975.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi, dated 6‑12‑1974 in Civil IInd Appeal No. 627 of 1967).
--‑ Gift‑Letters of donor, relied on by donee, couched in flowery and metaphorical language and meaning nothing except a pious wish Donee also taking letter in same sense and inquiring from donor years later whether he had changed iris mind or he could undertake constructions on plots allegedly gifted‑Donor's son after donee's death selling out plot to another‑Property rights of vendee, held, cannot be displaced on mere assertion of an oral gift, not accom panied by delivery of possession‑Even otherwise concurrent findings of fact of so‑called gift being not accompanied by delivery of possession could not be interfered with at leave to appeal stage.
Ghulam Hussain Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Shafiq Ahmad, Advocate‑on Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 7th March 1975.
Courts below have concurrently found that the gift made in favour of the petitioner by his uncle late Mir Ilahi Bux was not accompanied by delivery of possession. We have ourselves perused the record and come to the same conclusion. Indeed we are further of the view that no gift was at all made by Mir Ilahi Buz in favour of the petitioner. The letters written by Mir Ilahi Bax on which the petitioner, relies are couched in flowery and metaphorical language. They, in fact, mean nothing except a pious wish. So did the petitioner understand these letters to mean as years after these letters were written, he wrote a letter inquiring whether Mir Ilahi Bux had changed his mind or he could undertake construction of a house on the plots which he had gifted to him orally.
Be that as it may, we find no proper ground to interfere with the con current finding of fact that the so‑called gift was not accompanied by delivery of possession. It is significant that on the death of Ilahi Bux, his son Mir Hussain Bux, respondent No. 2, has sold the same plots to Raees Muhammad Mushtaq, respondent No. 1, for a sum of Rs. 28,000. New property rights have thus come into being which can not be displaced on the mere assertion of an oral gift, not accompanied by delivery of possession.
The petition for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer