Register Hibba through attorney cancelled by high court due to permission efidavit was not present in evidence .
 |
| Register Hibba through attorney cancelled by high court due to permission efidavit was not present in evidence . |
فیصلے میں عدالت نے درج ذیل ریمارکس دیے:
1. **ثبوت کی کمی:**
- عدالت نے یہ نکتہ اٹھایا کہ مدعا علیہ نے نہ تو تحریری ثبوت پیش کیا کہ مرحوم والد نے تحفے کے لیے خصوصی اجازت دی تھی اور نہ ہی تحفے کی قانونی اجزاء (آفر، قبولیت، اور ملکیت کی منتقلی) کو ثابت کیا۔
2. **پاور آف اٹارنی کی حد:**
- عدالت نے کہا کہ عمومی پاور آف اٹارنی میں مخصوص اختیارات کا ذکر نہیں تھا جو کہ تحفے کے لیے درکار تھے۔ اس سے ثابت ہوتا ہے کہ پاور آف اٹارنی کا استعمال تحفے کے لیے نہیں کیا جا سکتا تھا۔
3. **قانونی اصول:**
- عدالت نے وضاحت کی کہ ایک وکیل یا ایجنٹ کی طرف سے تحفے کی منتقلی کے لیے خاص اجازت یا ہدایات ضروری ہوتی ہیں۔ بغیر اس کے، تحفہ قانونی طور پر درست نہیں مانا جا سکتا۔
4. **عدالتی فیصلے کی توثیق:**
- عدالت نے ٹرائل کورٹ کے فیصلے کو برقرار رکھتے ہوئے کہا کہ مذکورہ تحفے کی دستاویز اور پاور آف اٹارنی قانونی طور پر درست نہیں ہیں، اور اسی بنا پر ان کو کالعدم قرار دیا گیا۔
5. **قانونی نظائر:**
- فیصلے میں کئی قانونی نظائر کا حوالہ دیا گیا جو کہ وکیل یا ایجنٹ کی طرف سے تحفے کی منتقلی کے لیے ضروری شرائط کی وضاحت کرتے ہیں۔
یہ ریمارکس فیصلے کی بنیاد فراہم کرتے ہیں اور یہ واضح کرتے ہیں کہ قانونی معیار اور طریقہ کار پر عمل درآمد کی اہمیت ہے۔
**فیصلہ کا خلاصہ:**
1. **مقدمے کی تفصیلات:**
- **پارٹیاں:**
- **مدعی:** رابع نواز (مرحوم) کے قانونی ورثاء
- **مدعا علیہ:** مسٹ سمرا اندلیب
- **مقدمے کا معاملہ:**
- مدعی کی بیٹی نے اپنے مرحوم والد کی جانب سے کیے گئے زبانی تحفے کی تبدیلی اور عمومی پاور آف اٹارنی کو چیلنج کیا۔
- مدعا علیہ نے تحفے کی دستاویز اور پاور آف اٹارنی کے ذریعے مرحوم کے اثاثے اپنی بیوی کے نام منتقل کیے۔
2. **عدالتی فیصلے کی تفصیلات:**
- **ٹرائل کورٹ:**
- تحفے کی دستاویز (دستاویز نمبر 4000/1) اور پاور آف اٹارنی (دستاویز نمبر 712/4) کو کالعدم قرار دیا۔
- **اپیل:**
- مدعی اور مدعا علیہ دونوں نے فیصلے کے خلاف اپیل کی۔
- ایڈیشنل ڈسٹرکٹ جج نے دونوں اپیلوں کو مسترد کیا اور تحفے کی دستاویز کو کالعدم قرار دینے کا فیصلہ برقرار رکھا۔
3. **فیصلے کی بنیاد:**
- **مدعی کی جانب سے:**
- تحفے کی تبدیلی اور پاور آف اٹارنی کی درستگی کو چیلنج کیا۔
- **مدعا علیہ کی جانب سے:**
- دعویٰ کیا گیا کہ تحفے کی دستاویز اور پاور آف اٹارنی کو قانونی طور پر درست طریقے سے تیار کیا گیا تھا، مگر اصل میں ان کے پاس اس کا کوئی تحریری ثبوت نہیں تھا۔
4. **عدالتی رائے:**
- **ثبوت کی کمی:**
- مدعا علیہ نے زبانی اجازت یا تحریری دستاویزات پیش نہیں کیں جو تحفے کے قانونی ہونے کی تصدیق کرتی۔
- **پاور آف اٹارنی کی تفصیلات:**
- عمومی پاور آف اٹارنی میں تحفے کے لیے خاص اختیارات نہیں دیے گئے تھے۔
- **فیصلے کی توثیق:**
- عدالت نے ٹرائل کورٹ کے فیصلے کو برقرار رکھا اور اپیل مسترد کی۔
**آخری فیصلہ:**
- **شہری نظرثانی:**
- مدعا علیہ کی طرف سے چیلنج کردہ فیصلے کو برقرار رکھا، تحفے کی دستاویز کو کالعدم قرار دیا اور شہری نظرثانی مسترد کردی۔
Form No: HCJD /A38
JUDGMENT SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
JUDGMENT
Civil Revision No. 44182 of 2024
Rab Nawaz deceased son of Abdul Haq through his legal heirs etc.
Versus
Mst. Samra Andleeb
Date of Hearing:
12.07.2024
Petitioners by:
Farzana Nazir Bhullar, Advocate.
*********************
MASUD ABID NAQVI, J.
Concise facts of this civil revision
are that the daughter of deceased Abdul Haq /plaintiff/respondent
challenged oral gift mutation No. 132 dated 04.07.1996 allegedly
entered/sanctioned by the plaintiff/respondent’s deceased father in
favour of his son/defendant No.1/predecessor in interest of the
petitioners and also challenged the validity of general power of
attorney No.712/4 dated 10.11.2001/Ex.D-3 allegedly executed by
the plaintiff/respondent’s deceased father/principal in favour of
defendant No.1/his son/attorney who transferred the principal’s
property to his wife/defendant No.2/petitioner No.1-A through gift
deed No.4000/1 dated 29.12.2004/Ex.D-1
without the
special/express permission of principal. The suit was duly contested
by the petitioners/defendants by filing written statement and by
raising certain factual as well as legal objections. Out of divergent
pleadings of the parties, issues were framed by the learned trial
court. The parties produced their respective evidence and after
recording the same, learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the
C.R. No.44182-2024
2
plaintiff to the extent of gift mutation No.132 dated 04.07.1996 and
partially decreed the suit of plaintiff by declaring the gift
transaction/gift deed gift deed No.4000/1 dated 29.12.2004/Ex.D-1
executed on basis of general power of attorney No.712/4 dated
10.11.2001/Ex.D-3 as void ab initio vide judgment and decree
dated 08.06.2002. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff/respondent as
well as defendants/petitioners filed their respective appeals and the
learned Addl. District Judge, Sahiwal vide consolidated judgment
and decrees dated 21.05.2024 dismissed both the appeals. Being
dissatisfied, the defendants/petitioners have filed the instant civil
revision and challenged the validity of the impugned judgments and
decrees passed by the learned Courts below only to the extent of
findings on gift transaction/gift deed No.4000/1 dated 29.12.2004
& general power of attorney No.712/4 dated 10.11.2001.
2.
The learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants mainly
argues that the disputed gift deed was registered by the defendant
No.1/son of deceased Abdul Haq in favour of defendant No.2/his
wife on behalf of his father after not only obtaining the oral
permission/consent from his father/principal to gift the disputed
property to his wife but also obtained an affidavit from his father,
permitting the defendant No.1 to gift the land to his wife. On
Court’s query, the learned counsel for the petitioners concedes that
the alleged affidavit has not been pleaded or exhibited in evidence
by the defendants/petitioners in their evidence.
3.
I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
petitioners and minutely gone through the record as well as the
impugned judgments and decrees.
C.R. No.44182-2024
3
4.
There is no denial of the facts that the defendants/petitioners
have neither specifically pleaded in the written statement about the
alleged special/specific permission of the principal/father to his
attorney/son/defendant No.1 to gift his property to his
wife/defendant No.2/petitioner No.1-A through gift deed No.4000/1
dated 29.12.2004 or the original transaction of gift with time, date,
day, month etc. nor three essential/basic/inseparable ingredients of
valid gift i.e. offer, acceptance and delivery of possession. The
defendants/petitioners have also not pleaded/exhibited any
document(s) especially showing the written consent/permission of
the principal to the attorney as is allegedly written in the disputed
gift deed. On the basis of alleged general power of attorney
No.712/4 dated 10.11.2001/Ex.D-3, alleged gift deed
No.4000/1/Ex.D-1 dated 29.12.2004 was registered during the
lifetime of the principal and it is strange that neither the principal
himself exercised the right and power for the purpose of making a
gift to alleged donee/his daughter in law by taking a mentally
conscious decision nor signed disputed gift deed in favour of the
alleged donee, who had no mental or physical incapacity at that
time, pleaded by the defendants/petitioners themselves in their
written statement. Power of attorney is an instrument in writing,
conferring authority or power by a principal to his attorney to do
certain acts in a specific and limited manner and in the disputed
general power of attorney No.712/4 dated 10.11.2001/Ex.D-3, no
specific powers were given by the principal/father to his
attorney/his son to gift his land to attorney’s wife/defendant
No.2/petitioner No.1-A by clearly specifying the name of donee
C.R. No.44182-2024
4
and the power of attorney is also not clearly indicating/conveying
the principal’s knowledge, intention and consent for making gift of
his land to his attorney’s wife/principal’s daughter in law. There is
no cavil to the proposition that generally an attorney cannot utilize
the powers conferred upon him to transfer the property to himself
or his kith and kin, without special and specific consent/permission
of the principal and in case of gift transaction, more strict
conditions have been attached by the Superior Courts for proving
the gift made by an attorney as a valid gift transaction because
being voluntarily and gratuitous, gift reflects the personal
sentiments of love, affection, kindness and compassion of donor for
the donee or sometimes sentiments due to personal services
rendered by the donee to the donor and personal sentiments of
donor/principal cannot be expressed by an attorney on behalf of
donor, therefore, the process of making valid gift must preferably
be initiated & completed by the donor himself with the exception
that the attorney may gift the property on the express permission
and instructions of his principal. Strong personal sentiments of
donor must necessarily be directly established in gift transaction in
clear terms through pleadings and irrefutable evidence because
alleged donor has allegedly deprived his daughter/plaintiff from his
land. The resume of the discussion is that the defendants/petitioners
miserably failed to plead and prove through evidence (i) execution
of general power of attorney/Ex.D-3 & (ii) making of original oral
gift transaction with its legal ingredients, valid gift with offer,
acceptance and delivery of possession, express
permission/instructions of donor/principal to his attorney for
C.R. No.44182-2024
5
making gift & execution of gift deed/Ex.D-1. Reference is made to
the cases reported as “Mst. Shumal Begum Vs. Mst. Gulzar Begum
and 3 others” (1994 SCMR 818), “Haji Faqir Muhammad and
others Vs. Pir Muhammad and another” (1997 SCMR
1811),“Maqsood Ahmad and others Vs. Salman Ali” (PLD 2003
S.C. 31), “Jamil Akhtar and others Vs. Las Baba and others”
(PLD 2003 S.C. 494), “Ijaz Bashir Qureshi Vs. Shams-un-Nisa
Qureshi and others” (2021 SCMR 1298), “Syed Atif Raza Shah
Vs. Syed Fida Hussain Shah and others” (2022 SCMR 1262) and
“Babar Anwar Vs. Muhammad Ashraf and another” (2024 SCMR
734).
5.
In view of above, challenged findings of the learned Courts
below in impugned judgments and decrees to the extent of
declaring the gift deed No.4000/1 dated 29.12.2004 as invalid
transaction are upheld / maintained. Neither any misreading or
non-reading of evidence on record nor any infirmity, legal or
factual, has been pointed out in the challenged findings of the
learned Courts below in impugned judgments and decrees passed
by the learned Courts, therefore, this civil revision is, hereby,
dismissed in limine.
(MASUD ABID NAQVI)
JUDGE
Approved for reporting.
JUDGE
Comments
Post a Comment