Rukhsana Kausar And Other vs Muhammad Aslam (Deceased)
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had allowed a civil revision and dismissed the petitioners' suit challenging the validity of a gift. The petitioners sought to set aside the High Court's ex parte judgment and subsequently challenged the dismissal of their recall application. The core legal questions were whether the gift was validly established and whether the requirement of delivery of possession was satisfied when the donees were minor children residing with the donor. The Supreme Court found the petition barred by time and lacking merit. On the merits, the Court held that the gift was validly established as the donor had affirmed it during his lifetime. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the principle that where donees are minor children residing in the same house as the donor, physical delivery of possession is not strictly required, and symbolic delivery is sufficient to perfect the gift. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and declined leave to appeal, upholding the High Court's decision.
- Is physical delivery of possession necessary for a gift to be valid when the donees are minor children residing with the donor?
- Can a gift be considered established if the donor affirmed the factum of the gift during their lifetime?
- Is symbolic delivery of possession sufficient to perfect a gift in cases involving minor donees living in the same house as the donor?
KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J. Vide judgment dated 12.4.2001, the learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court allowed Civil Revision No. 1730 of 1984 and after setting aside the judgments and decree of the Courts below the suit of the present petitioners was dismissed. The petitioners had brought a suit claiming invalidity of the gift in favour of the respondents. Petitioners filed an application (C.M. No. 705 C/2001) seeking setting aside/recall of the judgment and decree dated 12.4.2001, on the ground that the same was passed ex parte against the petitioners. This application was taken up for hearing, on 9.1.2002 , and the learned Judge permitted the petitioners, learned counsel to argue on merits of the civil revision. After hearing, the application was dismissed. The petitioners seek leave to appeal against both the decisions i.e. Dated 12.4.2001 allowing the civil revision and dated 9.1.2002 refusing to recall the judgment dated 12.4.2001.
2. This Petition seems to be barred by time as. Against the judgment dated 12.4.2001. When confronted, learned counsel for the petitioners, was unable to give' any reasonable" explanation.
Nevertheless, we heard the learned counsel on merits of the case. According to him, the factum of gift was not established and in any case the gift was incomplete as no possession was delivered to the donees.
3. The High Court has adequately dealt with these points. The factum of gift was supported by the donor in his life-time. The High Court is, therefore, right in concluding that the gift stood established, It has also correctly held that as the donees (minor, children of the donor) were residing in the same house the delivery could only be symbolic and physical delivery, as such was not necessary.
4. We hold that this petition is without merit and dismiss the same. Leave is declined.