ABDUL QAYYUM KHAN vs Mst. RAZIA BIBI And Another
This matter concerns a dispute over a gift deed executed by the respondents in favour of the petitioner regarding a share in agricultural land. The respondents, who are Pardah Nashin ladies, filed a declaratory suit alleging that the gift deed was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation, claiming they believed they were executing a lease deed. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, finding no evidence of fraud and confirming the transfer of possession. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, holding that the petitioner failed to prove the essential elements of a valid gift, specifically the delivery of possession, and failed to produce the gift deed or examine marginal witnesses to establish its execution. The High Court upheld this reversal, noting the lack of evidence regarding the execution and the absence of a justifiable cause for the gift. Upon review, the Supreme Court found the concurrent findings of fact by the lower appellate and revisional courts to be unexceptionable and dismissed the petition, affirming that the essential requirements for a valid gift were not established.
- Is the delivery of possession an essential element for the validity of a gift?
- Can a gift deed be declared null and void if it was executed by Pardah Nashin ladies under the misrepresentation that it was a lease deed?
- Does the failure to produce the gift deed or examine marginal witnesses invalidate a claim of gift?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.--The dispute in this petition relates to a gift of 14/220 share in agricultural land measuring 120 Kanals and 18 Marlas situate in Chak No. 363-R.B., Tehsil and District Faisalabad.
2. The respondents herein purportedly made a gift in favour of their cousin, the petitioner herein, through a registered gift deed, dated 10th of March, 1981. A mutation bearing No. 2074 in regard to the said transaction was also sanctioned. It appears that the respondents herein filed a declaratory suit on 21st of June, 1981, seeking a declaration that the gift deed be declared as null and void as having been got executed through misrepresentation and by practising fraud. The precise ground taken in the plaint was that the petitioner had represented to them that he would get them the possession of their share through partition if they were agreeable to lease out the land to him. And as they were Pardah Nashin ladies and illiterate they were kept in dark as to the real nature of the transaction, and they executed the document taking it to be a lease deed. They further averred that the possession of the land was not handed over to the petitioner as the same was with the tenants. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the respondents have failed to establish fraud and that they had duly transferred their share, in favour of the petitioner, of which possession had also been given.
3. In appeal, the appellate Court reversed the conclusion and allowed the appeal on the ground that the petitioner had failed to establish one of the main elements of a valid gift such as delivery of possession and had further failed to produce the document itself or examine any marginal witness to establish the factum of the execution of the deed of gift. This conclusion was upheld by the High Court in revision as in its view neither the factum of the execution of the gift deed was established nor did the petitioner give any valid reason as to why the respondents would have gifted their share to him as he was only a "Phuphizad", which does not establish any special relationship or any justifiable cause for gifting the property to him.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are not inclined to reopen the conclusions on fact, which, in our view, are, unexceptionable. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as without any merit.