MUHAMMAD YASIN vs Mst. ABIDA RAHIM and others
This matter originated as a civil suit for declaration regarding the ownership of a property measuring 13 Marlas, claimed by both the petitioner and the respondents through alleged gifts from their predecessor, Muhammad Azam. The trial court initially decreed the suit in favor of the petitioner, but the Additional District Judge reversed this decision, finding that neither party had successfully proven the gift, thereby ruling that the property should be inherited according to Muhammadan Law. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitioner's civil revision, upholding the concurrent findings of fact. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in its appreciation of evidence regarding the validity of the gift deed and the delivery of possession. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the lower courts correctly found that the petitioner failed to prove the delivery of possession, a necessary element of a valid gift, and noting the petitioner's failure to mention the gift in an earlier suit. The principle affirmed is that concurrent findings of fact regarding the non-delivery of possession in a gift claim are generally not subject to interference in appellate jurisdiction.
- Is the delivery of possession a necessary condition for the validity of a gift under Muhammadan Law?
- Can a party claim a gift in a subsequent suit when they failed to mention it in an earlier suit regarding the same property?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the proof of a gift?
' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The respondents instituted a suit against the petitioner for declaration in that suit property, a plot measuring 13 Marlas (approximately), had been gifted by Muhammad Azam alias Muhammad Azeem to his son late Rahim Bakhsh, their predecessor-in- interest. The petitioner made a similar claim that the suit property was gifted to him by his aforesaid father by a valid gift deed '(Exh.D.1). The suit was decreed by the Civil Judge 1st Class, Bhalwal, District Sargodha vide judgment, dated 21-11-1996. On an appeal by the petitioner, the judgment of the trial Court was reversed by an Additional District Judge, Bhalwal vide judgment, dated 16-2-2000. It was held that both the parties had failed to prove the gift in their favour.
Therefore, on the death of Muhammad Azam, his sons namely, Muhammad Yasin petitioner and late Rahim Bakhsh predecessor-in-interest of the respondents were entitled to inherit the suit property in accordance with Muhammadan Law. The Civil Revision No,634 of 2000 filed by the petitioner in the Lahore High Court, Lahore against the said judgment was dismissed, vide impugned judgment, dated 24-9-2007.
2. Learned counsel vehemently argued that the gift deed, dated 3-3-1981 (Exh.D.1) executed in favour of the petitioner by his father Muhammad Azam was duly proved. Therefore, High Court as well as the Additional District Judge fell into error in refusing to give effect to the same.
3. We have heard the learned counsel at length and have also perused the available record with his assistance. The High Court as well as the First Appellate Court, after proper appreciation of evidence had recorded concurrent findings of fact that delivery of the possession of the suit property was not proved by the petitioner and that it was the respondents, who were still in possession of the suit property over which their predecessor late Rahim Bakhsh had built up a house. Needless to observe that in his earlier suit for possession of the suit property on the basis of ownership filed by the petitioner on 4-12-1982, he did not mention about making of the gift of the suit property to him by his father Muhammad Azam alias Muhammad Azeem.
' In our opinion, the impugned judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore does not suffer from any infirmity warranting inference by this Court.
' For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.