GHULAM HUSSAIN through Legal Heirs and others vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD
This appeal arose from a challenge to concurrent findings of three lower courts regarding the validity of a gift deed executed by Mst. Bakht Bano in favor of her son, Ghulam Muhammad. The plaintiff, Ghulam Hussain, challenged the gift on grounds of fraud, undue influence, and non-delivery of possession. The trial court, the first appellate court, and the High Court all consistently held that the gift was a genuine and valid transaction. The Supreme Court observed that the validity of a gift is a pure question of fact and that it should not ordinarily interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless a compelling case is made out, which the appellants failed to do. Furthermore, the Court noted that the plaintiff had previously initiated litigation through his father-in-law, attempting to declare the donor of unsound mind, which had failed and resulted in the imposition of special costs. Finding the current litigation to be based on mala fides and lacking merit, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
- Should the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact rendered by three lower courts regarding the validity of a gift?
- Does the failure of a previous suit challenging the mental capacity of a donor indicate mala fides in subsequent litigation challenging the same gift?
' SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.--- The legal heirs of Ghulam Hussain deceased (plaintiff in the original suit) have been granted leave to appeal from the judgment dated 30-9-2002 of a learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, whereby, Civil Revision No,306-D of 1996 filed by the appellants against concurrent findings of two Courts below, was dismissed.
2. Briefly, the disputed property measuring 59 Kanals, 6 Marlas in Talagang Sharqi was admittedly owned by Mst. Bakht Bano, the mother of the plaintiff. She gifted away the same through a registered gift deed dated 19-3-1979 in favor of her son Ghulam Muhammad. On 21-11-1979, Ghulam Hussain filed a suit for declaration etcetera that the aforesaid gift transaction was a result of fraud, undue influence and ineffective due to non-delivery of possession.
3. After contest and once having been remanded by the First Appellate Court, the learned trial Court vide judgment, dated 27-11-1990 dismissed the suit. The same was maintained by the learned Additional District Judge, Talagang vide judgment dated 25-3-1996 and subsequently, by the learned High Court vide judgment, dated 30-5-2002.
4. The disputed one is the transaction of gift, the validity or otherwise whereof is a pure question of fact. In the light of evidence on record, all the three Courts in succession have concluded that the transfer by gift was a genuine and valid transaction. This Court should not ordinarily interfere with such concurrent findings. The appellants could not make out a case so as to persuade this Court to undo the concurrent findings of fact rendered by three Courts.
5. It is a proved fact on record that Ghulam Muhammad, respondent had died long before and during pendency of revision petition before the High Court. It is admitted that the legal representatives of Ghulam Muhammad were duly brought on record in the High Court. It is rather unavoidable to notice that while filing the instant petition, the appellants had arrayed Ghulam Muhammad as respondent No,l. It was an appeal against a dead person. Anyhow, we have invited arguments and heard the learned counsel on either side at length due to Mst. Saidan Bano, respondent No,2.
6. While hearing the arguments on merits, it was noticed that prior to the instant suit a suit was lodged on behalf of Mst. Bakht Bano through her next friend seeking declaration that Mst. Bakht Bano was a woman of unsound mind and that any gift, if at all, made by her would be void. The interesting aspect of the matter is that the father-in-law of Ghulam Hussain, the present plaintiff acted as next friend of Mst. Bakht Bano. Another interesting aspect is that when Mst. Bakht Bano did physically appear before the trial Court, she was examined and adjudged to be of sound mind.
Such suit was dismissed on 7-7-1981 and Muhammad Nawaz, the next friend and father-in-law of the present plaintiff was burdened with special costs. It seems that once having failed in his attempt through his father-in-law, Ghulam Hussain had initiated a second round of litigation based on utter mala tides. In these circumstances and further in view of evidence on record, all the three Courts were justified in upholding the gift and in dismissing the suit. There being no force in the instant appeal, it is hereby dismissed.