2018 PLP 139 (SCMR)
FAREED and others — Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD TUFAIL and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2018 PLP 139 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Umar Ata Bandial and Manzoor Ahmad Malik, JJ |
| Parties | FAREED and others — Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD TUFAIL and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Gift, (a) Gift |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2018 PLP 139 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Gift, (a) Gift as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2018 PLP 139 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Umar Ata Bandial and Manzoor Ahmad Malik, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2018 PLP 139 (SCMR) (FAREED and others — Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD TUFAIL and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.A. Ghaffar-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants.
- Sh. Naveed Shahryar, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.1.
- Ex parte for Respondent No. 2.
- 2. The principal issue, whether the respondent-plaintiff Muhammad Tufail could claim as a legal heir of Gomaan, is settled by a concurrent finding of fact given by three learned Courts below. In the light thereof the rule laid down by this Court in Kulsoom Bibi v. Muhammad Arif (2005 SCMR 135) and Ghulam Haider v. Ghulam Rasool (2003 SCMR 1829) that a donee claiming under a gift that excludes an heir, is required by law to establish the original transaction of gift irrespective of whether such transaction is evidenced by a registered deed. In the present case there is no evidence of declaration of gift or of its acceptance on record. The mere transfer of possession to a donee is not sufficient to constitute a valid gift under the law. Furthermore, in the judgment of this Court reported as Barkat Ali v. Muhammad Ismail (2002 SCMR 1938) a gift deed as in the present case must justify the disinheritance of an heir from the gift. This is also lacking in the present gift deed which has not been proven satisfactorily as Ijaz Ahmed Khan, Advocate who identified Gomaan before the sub-Registrar was not produced before the learned Trial Court nor was the sub-Registrar or the scribe of the documents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order dated 27.4.2009 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan passed in C.R. No.682-D/95)
Effect
Donee claiming under a gift that excluded an heir, was required by law to establish the original transaction of gift irrespective of whether such transaction was evidenced by a registered deed
Gift deed must justify the disinheritance of an heir from the gift. Kulsoom Bibi v. Muhammad Arif 2005 SCMR 135; Ghulam Haider v. Ghulam Rasool 2003 SCMR 1829 and Barkat Ali v. Muhammad Ismail 2002 SCMR 1938 ref.
Mere transfer of possession to donee was not sufficient to constitute a valid gift under the law.
Judgment & Decree
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.
The respondent Muhammad Tufail filed a suit for being wrongly disinherited from his share in the legacy of Gomaan vide a mutation of Tamleek No. 749 dated 21.3.1985 incorporated in pursuance of registered Tamleek deed dated 17.3.1985 (Exh.P-7). The impugned judgment dated 27.4.2009 by the learned High Court has set aside the result rendered by the learned Appellate Court and restored the judgment of the learned Trial Court dated 29.6.1993 to decree the respondent's suit. Consequently, the entitlement of respondent-Muhammad Tufail as heir in the legacy of deceased Gomaan stands affirmed by rejecting the registered Tamleeknama and the consequential mutation mentioned above.
2. The principal issue, whether the respondent-plaintiff Muhammad Tufail could claim as a legal heir of Gomaan, is settled by a concurrent finding of fact given by three learned Courts below. In the light thereof the rule laid down by this Court in Kulsoom Bibi v. Muhammad Arif (2005 SCMR 135) and Ghulam Haider v. Ghulam Rasool (2003 SCMR 1829) that a donee claiming under a gift that excludes an heir, is required by law to establish the original transaction of gift irrespective of whether such transaction is evidenced by a registered deed. In the present case there is no evidence of declaration of gift or of its acceptance on record. The mere transfer of possession to a donee is not sufficient to constitute a valid gift under the law. Furthermore, in the judgment of this Court reported as Barkat Ali v. Muhammad Ismail (2002 SCMR 1938) a gift deed as in the present case must justify the disinheritance of an heir from the gift. This is also lacking in the present gift deed which has not been proven satisfactorily as Ijaz Ahmed Khan, Advocate who identified Gomaan before the sub-Registrar was not produced before the learned Trial Court nor was the sub-Registrar or the scribe of the documents.
3. In the circumstances, we consider that the learned High Court has rightly rejected the registered gift-deed. Since the impugned mutation is merely a consequential act, the same also lacks legal validity. This appeal is accordingly fails and the same is therefore dismissed. MWA/F-13/SC Appeal dismissed.