Mir HYDER BUX vs RAEES MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against concurrent findings of the lower courts, which had dismissed the petitioner's claim of ownership over certain plots of land based on an alleged oral gift from his late uncle, Mir Ilahi Bux. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had established a valid gift, specifically regarding the essential requirement of the delivery of possession. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the record, affirmed the lower courts' findings. The Court held that the evidence, including letters relied upon by the petitioner, did not constitute a valid gift but rather expressed a pious wish. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that even if a gift were intended, the absence of delivery of possession rendered it ineffective. The Court also noted that the property had subsequently been sold to a third party for valuable consideration, creating new property rights that could not be displaced by an unproven oral gift. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the principle that an oral gift is incomplete and invalid without the actual delivery of possession.
- Is an oral gift valid under law if it is not accompanied by the delivery of possession?
- Can letters expressing a pious wish be construed as a valid gift of property?
- Do concurrent findings of fact regarding the absence of delivery of possession warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALT, J.-Courts below have concurrently found that the gift made in favour of the petitioner by his uncle late Mir Ilahi Bux was not accompanied by delivery of possession. We have ourselves perused the record and come to the same conclusion. Indeed we are further of the view that no gift was at all made by Mir Ilahi Bux in favour of the petitioner. The letters written by Mir Ilahi Bux on which the petitioner relies are couched in flowery and metaphorical language. They, in fact, mean nothing except a pious wish. So did the petitioner understand these letters to mean as years after these letters were written, he wrote a letter inquiring whether Mir Ilahi Bux had changed his mind or he could undertake construction of a house on the plots which he had gifted to him orally?
2. ' Be that as it may, we find no proper ground to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact that the so-called gift was not accompanied by delivery of possession. It is significant that on the death of Ilahi Bux, his son Mir Hussain Bux, respondent No, 2, has sold the same plots to Races Muhammad Mushtaq, respondent No, 1, for a sum of Rs, 28,000. New property rights have thus come into being which cannot be displaced on the mere assertion of an oral gift, not accompanied by delivery of possession.
3. The petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. 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.