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 No. 971 of 1984, decided on 31st October, 1984.
(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 12‑7‑1984 of the Lahore High Court passed in Criminal Revision No. 1147/D of 1984).
--‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 9‑‑Suit for declaration‑‑Gift of agricultural land to cousin challenged‑‑Allegations of fraud and misrepresentation‑‑ Neither factum of execution of gift deed, nor delivery of possession or special relationship/ justifiable cause for gifting property, established‑‑Suit decreed in appeal in favour of respondents‑‑Conclusion drawn by lower Courts being unexceptionable, Supreme Court declined to re‑open‑‑Petition being devoid of merits, dismissed.
Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 31st October, 1984.
The dispute in this petition relates to a gift of 14/220 share in agricultural land measuring 120 Kanals and 18 Marlas situate in Chak No. 363‑R.B., Tehsil and District Faisalabad.
The respondents herein purportedly made a gift in favour of their cousin, the petitioner herein, through a registered gift deed, dated 10th of March, 1981. A mutation bearing No. 2074 in regard to the said transaction was also sanctioned. It appears that the respondents herein filed a declaratory suit on 21st of June, 1981, seeking a declaration that the gift deed be declared as null and void as having been got executed through misrepresentation and by practising fraud. The precise ground taken in the plaint was that the petitioner had represented to them that he would get them the possession of their share through partition if they were agreeable to lease out the land to him. And as they were Pardah Nashin ladies and illiterate they were kept in dark as to the real nature of the transaction, and they executed the document taking it to be a lease deed. They further averred that the possession of the land was not handed over to the petitioner as the same was with the tenants. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the respondents have failed to establish fraud and that they had duly transferred their share, in favour of the petitioner, of which possession had also been given.
In appeal, the appellate Court reversed the conclusion and allowed the appeal on the ground that the petitioner had failed to establish one of the main elements of a valid gift such as delivery of possession and had further failed to produce the document itself or examine any marginal witness to establish the factum of the execution of the deed of gift. This conclusion was upheld by the High Court in revision as in its view neither the factum of the execution of the gift deed was established nor did the petitioner give any valid reason as to why the respondents would have gifted their share to him as he was only a "Phuphizad", which does not establish any special relationship or any justifiable cause for gifting the property to him.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are not inclined to reopen the conclusions on fact, which, in our view, are, unexceptionable. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as without any merit.
M. I. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer