BAKHSHA Through Legal Heirs And 2 Others vs Mst. SALAHAN BIBI And Another
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a decision of the Lahore High Court, which allowed the respondents' regular second appeal and set aside the concurrent judgments of the trial and appellate courts that had decreed the petitioners' suit challenging a gift of agricultural land. The petitioners, nephews of the deceased donor, contested the gift made to his daughter on grounds of mental incapacity due to illness and non-delivery of possession. The core questions were whether the donor possessed valid legal capacity at the time of making the gift and whether possession was delivered to complete the transaction. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioners failed to produce medical evidence showing that the donor lacked mental capacity or that his tuberculosis had reached an advanced stage inducing death expectation. Furthermore, the donor had personally appeared in court to support the gift, and no evidence disproved the donee's possession. Finding no merit in the challenge, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
- Does suffering from tuberculosis, without medical evidence of mental impairment, invalidate a gift of property made by a donor?
- Whether an assertion of non-delivery of possession to invalidate a gift can succeed when no evidence is adduced to rebut the donor's admission of the donee's possession?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby it allowed the regular second appeal of the respondents and set aside the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Sargodha which had affirmed the judgment of the Civil Judge Sargodha. '
2. The dispute between the parties relates to agricultural land situate in to villages, namely, Thathi Rap and Dadan of Tehsil Shahpur. It was owned by one Jaffar. He had to daughters but no male issue. He gifted this land to his daughter, Mst. Salahan Bibi, respondent No. L To obtain 'official recognition for the gift respondent No. l filed a civil suit seeking a declaration with regard to the validity of the gift. Jaffar appeared in Court and filed a written statement. He confessed judgment whereupon the suit was decreed on 28-6-1965 Jaffar died on 1-9-1965. On 7-10-1968 the petitioners who were his nephews filed a civil suit inter alias challenging the validity of the gift. Their suit was decreed by the trial Court and the appeal preferred by respondent No. l before the Additional District Judge was dismissed. She then filed a second appeal in the High Court. A learned Single Judge reappraised the evidence and came to the conclusion that Jaffar had made a valid gift in her favour. Accordingly, he set aside the judgment of the Courts below and dismissed the suit of the petitioners. From the judgment of the High Court the petitioners seek leave to appeal from this Court.
3. The case of the petitioners at the trial was that at the the of making the gift Jaffar was invalid and was not in a fit condition mentally to make the gift. However, they did not lead any medical evidence in support of their assertion. According to their witness Jaffar was suffering from tuberculosis for about a year before his death. Ordinarily tuberculosis does not affect the capacity of a person to dispose of his property. In fact, he had himself appeared before the Court to support the gift in question.
4. Evidence is also lacking on the assertion of the petitioners that at the the of making the gift the tuberculosis from which Jaffar suffered had reached such an advanced stage that he was expecting to die on any moment.
5. It was also contended on behalf of the petitioners that the gift remained inchoate as the possession of the land in dispute was not transferred to respondent No. 1. It may be noticed that in her suit respondent No. l had claimed that she was in possession of the land in dispute. Jaffar supported her assertion. The petitioners led no evidence to show that this assertion was incorrect.
6. No other point was raised in this petition. It is hereby dismissed.