DR. ABDUL QADIR NASIM AND ANOTHER vs HUMAYUN AND OTHERS
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the nature of a registered deed dated July 15, 1979, executed by a donor in favor of his nephews. The petitioners, seeking to exercise a right of pre-emption, contended that the transaction was a sale rather than a gift. The trial court initially held the instrument to be a gift deed, a finding reversed on appeal but subsequently restored by the High Court in revision. Before the Supreme Court, the core legal question was whether the deed should be construed as a sale or a gift. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that any consideration had passed to support a sale transaction. The Court further ruled that the appellate court's reliance on the donor's relationship with his other family members was purely conjectural. The Court affirmed that the absence of mention of services rendered does not invalidate a gift, and the registered deed explicitly conveying the property as a gift must be upheld.
- Whether a registered deed explicitly conveying property as a gift can be construed as a sale in the absence of evidence of consideration?
- Does the failure to mention services rendered in a gift deed invalidate the gift?
- Can an appellate court rely on conjectures regarding a donor's family relationships to recharacterize a gift deed as a sale?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD HALEEM, ACTG. C. J.-In this ptition the question involved is as to whether the registered sale-deed, dated the 15th of July, 1979, was a- gift in . Favour of respondents Nos. 1 to 6 or a sale transaction, so as to give a right to the petitioners to maintain a suit for possession through pre- emption.
2. ' The trial Court dismissed the suit on the 27th of May, 1981, holding that this instrument was a gift- deed. But this conclusion was reversed in appeal. The High Court in revision restored the order of the trial Court, It is again urged before us that this document should be construed as a sale-deed. The council is not able to show as to whether any considaration had passed. Further he is not able to support the reason of the appellate Court that the donor in the lifetime of his brothers and his wife would not make a gift in favour of his nephews. This was merely a conjectural consideration as the donor was not examined add no circumstance was brought to light to show that the gift was illusory. It is also immaterial if the gift deed is silent in regard to the services allegedly rendered by the respondents as that is not an essential ingredient to make the gift legally valid. Therefore, there is no reason for us to doubt the contents of the registered deed, which, in explicit terms, conveys the property as gift to the nephews.
3. ' The petition, accordingly, has no merit, and is dismissed.