MUHAMMAD AJAIB and 2 others vs Mst. GHULAM FATIMA through Leal Heirs
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a declaratory suit challenging a gift mutation of agricultural land. The respondents (original plaintiffs) contested a gift of 13 kanals 16 marlas of land allegedly made in favour of the petitioner, Muhammad Ajaib. While the trial court initially dismissed the suit, the District Judge reversed this decision on appeal, finding the respondents to be in continuous possession of the land and declaring the gift invalid. The petitioners subsequently filed a regular second appeal before the Lahore High Court, which was dismissed. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners sought leave to appeal against the High Court's judgment. The Supreme Court examined the record and found a complete absence of evidence to substantiate the transaction of the gift or to prove the essential ingredients required for a valid gift. Consequently, the Court held that there were no grounds for interference with the concurrent findings of the lower appellate court and the High Court. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.
- Is a gift of land valid where the essential ingredients of the transaction are not proven by evidence?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere in a regular second appeal where the lower courts have concurrently found the evidence lacking?
ORDER
1. ' USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioners in a declaratory suit against the dismissal of their regular second appeal by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, vide impugned judgment.
2. ' This petition is the result of a suit brought by the plaintiffs/respondents, challenging the gift of 13 kanals 16 marlas of agricultural land mutation of which was attested on 17-7-1968, allegedly made on their behalf in favour of Muhammad Ajaib defendant/petitioner No,1. The suit of the contest was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, vide his order dated 15-6-1974. In appeal before the District Judge, the plaintiffs/respondents were held to be in continuous possession of the suit land and thus while allowing their appeal, set aside the order and decree of the Civil Judge and declared the gift made in favour of the defendant/petitioner No,1 as invalid, vide judgment dated 4-7-1975. The defendants/petitioners went in regular second appeal before the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench. A learned Single Judge of the High Court, vide his judgment dated 12-4-1988, dismissed the 2nd appeal being without any force.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners was heard at length. There is no evidence on the record at all to prove with regard to the transaction of the gift, nor the ingredients of the gift allegedly made in favour of the petitioner Ajaib are proved. The learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to satisfy us that it was a fit case for interference by the High Court in regular second appeal. Thus, we find no force in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.