Mst. HAMIDA BIBI vs MUHAMMAD FAZIL
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's challenge to concurrent findings of the lower courts. The core legal question concerns the validity of an oral gift mutation and whether the essential ingredients of a valid gift under Islamic law—specifically the offer, acceptance, and delivery of possession—were duly proved. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the absence of essential ingredients of a gift, including lack of proof of offer, acceptance, and delivery of possession before the revenue official, were properly evaluated and could not be interfered with. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the non-fulfillment of the essential ingredients of a gift warrant no interference under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan when supported by the record.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the validity of a gift can be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
- What are the essential ingredients required to prove a valid gift under the law?
- Does a mutation entry lacking proof of offer, acceptance, and delivery of possession constitute a valid gift?
- Article 185(3), Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan
ORDER
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J. -- We have gone through the impugned judgment dated 30.4.2001 of the Lahore High Court carefully. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment for the sake of convenience is reproduced below:- "7. The concurrent findings of the Courts below are supported by the evidence on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any misreading or mis-application of law by the Courts below. Learned Additional District Judge correctly appraised the evidence in holding that Sharif deceased had not gifted the suit property to the petitioner particularly on account of his death just after 17 days of the alleged gift mutation. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity or material irregularity, warranting interference. This petition has no merit and same is dismissed with no order as to costs."
2. A perusal of the record indicates that all the Courts including the learned High Court have concurrently held that the essential ingredients of gift have not been proved inasmuch as perusal of mutation entry dated 20.12.1980 also does not indicate that an offer was made by the doner and the donee accepted the same in presence of revenue official who attested the mutation entry. Similarly, there is no entry as to whether the property in dispute was handed over to the donee by the doner. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that concurrent finding of fact admits no interference by this Court within the contemplation of Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The above C.M.A. And the petition for leave to appeal being without any merit are dismissed.