QUTAB DIN and 4 others vs Mst. RAHIM BIBI
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a dispute over the validity of a gift of land made by the deceased, Barkat Ali, in favor of his daughter, Mst. Rahim Bibi. The petitioners, legal heirs of the deceased's brother, challenged the gift, claiming entitlement to a share of the estate on the grounds that the deceased was governed by custom and that the gift was illegal. The core legal question was whether the gift could be declared void due to the alleged non-delivery of possession. The Supreme Court observed that the plea regarding non-delivery of possession was neither raised in the original pleadings nor framed as an issue during the trial proceedings. Furthermore, the Court noted that the land was in the possession of tenants, and the respondent's name was duly recorded as the owner in the revenue records. Consequently, the Court held that the issue of non-delivery of possession could not be raised for the first time at the Regular Second Appeal stage. The petition was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision.
- Can a plea regarding non-delivery of possession be raised for the first time at the stage of a Regular Second Appeal?
- Is a gift of land valid where the property is in possession of tenants and the donee's name is recorded in revenue records?
ORDER
1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave is directed against order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 13th November, 1984 whereby the Regular Second Appeal of the petitioners was dismissed.
2. ' The background of this case is that Barkat Ali deceased made a gift of land in favour of his daughter namely Mst. Rahim Bibi respondent. The present petitioners are legal heirs of Hakam Ali who was brother of Barkat Ali. Hakam Ali filed a suit for possession against the respondent for 1/2 of the suit land on the ground that he was entitled to inherit the said share from the estate left by his deceased brother Barkat Ali who was governed by custom and the gift made by him in favour of his daughter was illegal because .The possession of the property had never been delivered. The trial Court framed numerous issues. But no issue was framed regarding non-delivery of possession as the said plea had not been taken in the pleadings. The suit was dismissed but on appeal the case was remanded with an additional issue framed by the Additional District Judge as to whether the gift deed was fictitious. The trial Court after recording the evidence again dismissed the suit by holding that the gift was not fictitious. The appeal of the petitioners was dismissed. Subsequently his R.S.A. Was also dismissed. Hence the present petition.
3. ' The only point urged before us by learned counsel is that the gift was void as no delivery of possession took place.
4. We have considered this argument of learned counsel. This objection had not been taken in the plaint and it was also not reflected in any of the issues framed. The High Court dismissed the R.S.A.
5. Mainly for the reason that the question of non-delivery of possession could not be raised at the stage of R.SA. Besides that the land in dispute was in possession of the tenants and the name of the respondent was recorded as owner of the said land in the Revenue record.
6. ' Since this is the position the order passed by the High Court is unexceptionable and no interference is called for. This petition is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF and 2 others vs Mst. AISHA BIBI 1994 MLD 677