AMI CHAND vs FAJROO
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the trial court, District Judge, and the High Court, which dismissed a suit challenging the validity of a gift mutation. The petitioner, owner of 164 kanals and 4 marlas of land, alleged that a mutation of gift attested in 1966 in favour of his three daughters and the respondent, Fajroo, was fraudulent and misrepresented. The petitioner contended that he never gifted land to the respondent and that the respondent received a disproportionately larger share (5/6th) compared to the petitioner's daughters (1/6th). Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the gift remained inchoate due to the non-delivery of possession. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the contentions regarding the lack of motive for the gift, the disproportionate distribution of land, and the legal requirement of delivery of possession for a valid gift. Finding that these contentions raised substantial questions requiring deeper judicial scrutiny, the Court granted leave to appeal. Consequently, the Court ordered that the status quo be maintained between the parties pending the final adjudication of the appeal.
- Does the non-delivery of possession render a gift inchoate under the law?
- Can a mutation of gift be challenged on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation regarding the donor's intent?
- Is a disproportionate distribution of land in a gift deed a material circumstance for determining the validity of the gift?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioner was owner of 164 kanals and 4 marlas of land in Mahal Nainwal Jagir of Tehsil Kasur. On 28-10-66, a mutation of gift on his behalf was attested in favour of his 3 daughters and Fajroo, respondent. It may be mentioned that Fajroo was the son of his late wife's brother. Under the gift 5/6th share in the land was given to Fajroo while 1/6th share therein was given to his daughters. On 24-7-77, the petitioner filed a suit for a declaration that he had not made any gift in favour of Fajroo and that the latter's name had been added in the mutation through fraud and misrepresentation. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and the petitioner's appeal before the District Judge and revision before the High Court failed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. In support of this petition it is contended that the High Court as well as the subordinate Courts failed to notice a material circumstance that there was no reason at all why the petitioner should have made any gift in favour of Fajroo and that the area given to him should the 5 times more than that gifted to his own daughters. It is also contended that even if there was a gift, it remained inchoate on account of non-delivery of possession.
3. The contentions raised need examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs,5,000. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any, within two months.
4. Status quo to be maintained during the pendency of the appeal.