ALLAH DITTA vs GHULAM FATIMA and another
This civil petition for leave to appeal was filed by a subsequent purchaser against the dismissal of his Regular Second Appeal by the High Court. The underlying dispute arose from a suit filed by respondent No. 2 (alleged donor) challenging a purported gift made in favour of respondent No. 1 (alleged donee) and the consequential alienation made by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner. The suit had been decreed in favour of respondent No. 2 by the lower courts. The Supreme Court observed that the alleged donor did not acknowledge making the gift, and his testimony was believed by the courts below. Furthermore, the donee herself resiled from her initial admission regarding the gift. Consequently, the basis for upholding any subsequent alienation in favour of the petitioner vanished. The Supreme Court held that concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts did not suffer from any error of law or principle. Finding no justification for interference, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.
- Whether a subsequent alienation by an alleged donee can be sustained when the alleged donor disowns the initial gift and is believed by the courts?
- What is the evidentiary weight of an interested donee's statement regarding a gift when the alleged donor denies having made such a gift?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding the invalidity of a gift be interfered with in the absence of an error of law or principle?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a defendant, against the dismissal by the High Court, of his Regular Second Appeal. The suit filed by the respondent No,2 challenging a gift purported to have been made by him in favour of respondent No,1 and consequential challenge to the further alienation made by her (respondent No,1) to the petitioner, was decreed. The petitioner having failed throughout up to the High Court, has sought leave to appeal.
2. ' It is not denied that after the admission about the gift in the first instance in her written statement, even the donee respondent No,1, resiled from this admission subsequently. Be that as it may, the statement of the interested donee is only of secondary importance. In this case respondent No,2 who admittedly is the alleged donor did not own the gift. He has been believed. There was no basis left for upholding the alienation made by the so-called donee in favour of the petitioner.
3. Accordingly the stress of the learned counsel on the statement and the conduct of the donee is of no avail to the petitioner. Similarly his criticism regarding concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner is of no avail to him; because, they do not suffer from any error, in law or principle. No justification having been made for grant of leave to appeal, the same, therefore, is refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.