Pakistan Case Law
2004 SCMR 1701

RIAZ ULLAH KHAN vs ASGHAR ALI and 2 others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2004 SCMR 1701
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,1893/L of 2002
Date2002-06-17
Judge(s)Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan
Authored bySardar Muhammad Raza Khan
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of three lower courts, including the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a suit challenging the validity of a gift transaction. The petitioner, a nephew of the deceased donor, Feroze Khan, contested a gift of land made by his uncle to his wife, Mst. Maqsooda Begum, alleging fraud and lack of delivery of possession. The core legal questions were whether the gift was validly executed and whether the absence of physical delivery of possession invalidated the gift to a wife. The Supreme Court held that the gift was validly executed through a registered deed, and the subsequent mutation was merely a formal revenue record entry. Regarding the challenge of possession, the Court affirmed the principle that in the case of a gift made by a husband to his wife, the delivery of possession is immaterial to the validity of the transaction. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition, upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, and refused leave to appeal.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Is the delivery of possession a necessary ingredient for the validity of a gift made by a husband to his wife?
  • Does the absence of specific details of fraud in a plaint preclude a party from challenging a registered deed?
  • Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts binding on the Supreme Court in a petition for leave to appeal?
gifthibadelivery of possessionregistered deedmutationconcurrent findingsinheritance claim

' SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.--- One Feroze Khan son of Sardar Khan was allegedly owner of 21 Kanals 13 Marlas in Chak No,283/JB, Tehsil Gojra, District Toba Tek Singh. On the basis of registered deed attested on 24-5-1989, he gifted away his property in favour of his wife Mst.

Maqsooda Begum. Mutation No,337 was also entered and attested on 15-6-1991 on the strength of the aforesaid registered deed. Feroze Khan died on 5-5-1991 while Mst. Maqsooda also died on 3- 64991.

2. The donor Feroze Khan had a nephew named Riaz Ullah Khanwho, on 23-1-1992 filed a suit against the legal heirs of the donee challenging the validity of gift as well as the mutation and claimed Shari share in the property of his uncle Feroze Khan. All the three Courts below dismissed his claim, last one on 6-5-2002 by the Honourable Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No,2216 of 1996 and hence his petition for leave to appeal.

3. It is a proved fact that the donor had got the gift registered vide deed, dated 24-5-1989. This being the main transaction, subsequent entry of attestation of Mutation No,337 on 15-6-1991 was a mere formality for A the incorporation of registered deed in the Revenue Record. The challenge was brought on grounds of fraud but neither the details of fraud had been mentioned in the plaint which was necessary nor any ingredients thereof were proved at trial. On the other hand, the respondents produced Naseer-ud-Din, the scribe of the registered deed and two marginal witnesses thereof, namely, Mahmood-ul-Hassan and Ahmad Ghani. All the three have completely proved the gift transaction and hence the validity thereof was rightly determined by the three Courts below.

4. The only objection that the learned counsel raised before us was that at the time of gift no possession was delivered to the wife and hence the necessary ingredient of gift was missing. Such argument is not at all available to the petitioner because in case of gift to a wife or to a ward, the delivery of possession is immaterial. On such grounds the argument is repelled.

5. Though this Court is not bound to go into the question of fact because the three Courts below had concurrently determined the same in C favour of the respondents yet the exercise is done in the interest of justice. There being no force in the petition, it is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.

Cited by 6 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.