To prove valid hiba , prove Offer , acceptance , and possession is mandatory .
 |
| To prove valid hiba , prove Offer , acceptance , and possession is mandatory . *جَجْمَنٹ شیٹ** |
**لاہور ہائی کورٹ، راولپنڈی بینچ راولپنڈی**
**عدالتی محکمہ**
**سی آر نمبر 466-D آف 2012**
** غلام فاطمہ (مرحوم) کے ذریعے قانونی وارثین بمقابلہ محمد خان وغیرہ**
**جَجْمَنٹ**
**سماعت کی تاریخ: 08.02.2022**
**درخواست گزار وکیل:** ش. زمیرا حسین، وکیل۔
**جواب دہندگان کے وکیل:** محمد خان، ایک جواب دہندہ جو تحریری دلائل کے ساتھ موجود ہیں۔
**صداقت علی خان، جج**
1. اس کیس میں صرف ایک مسئلہ ہے کہ آیا غلام فاطمہ، درخواست گزاروں کی مرحومہ، نے اپنے paternal چچا محمد خان، گلاب خان اور احمد خان (جواب دہندگان) کو 46 کنال 7 مرلے جائیداد بطور تحفہ دی تھی یا نہیں۔
2. ریکارڈ کا جائزہ لے کر دلائل سنے گئے۔
3. درخواست گزاروں نے وراثت کی منتقلی نمبر 2043 مورخہ 29.06.1989 (ایکس P2) کو چیلنج نہیں کیا جو کہ کرم خان کے حوالے سے ہے۔
4. غلام فاطمہ نے 02.10.2007 کو ایک مقدمہ دائر کیا جس میں دعویٰ کیا کہ وہ اس جائیداد کی مالک اور قبضہ دار ہے، جو اس نے اپنے paternal دادا کرم خان سے وراثت میں حاصل کی۔ اس نے دعویٰ کیا کہ اس نے کسی کو جائیداد تحفے میں نہیں دی اور تحفے کی منتقلی نمبر 2067 مورخہ 31.07.1989 (ایکس P3) جو اس کے paternal چچاؤں کے حق میں بنائی گئی تھی، جعلسازی پر مبنی ہے اور اسے منسوخ کیا جائے۔
5. جواب دہندگان نے مقدمہ کو چیلنج کیا اور الزامات کو مسترد کیا۔
6. ابتدائی عدالت نے 10.02.2010 کو مقدمہ مسترد کر دیا، اور اپیل بھی 03.03.2012 کو مسترد ہوئی، جس کے بعد یہ سول ریویژن دائر کی گئی۔
7. یہ طے شدہ ہے کہ منتقلی کوئی ملکیت کا کاغذ نہیں ہے؛ فائدہ اٹھانے والے کو لین دین ثابت کرنا ہوگا۔ تحفے کی صورت میں پیشکش، قبولیت، اور قبضہ کی منتقلی ضروری ہے۔
8. جواب دہندگان نے دعویٰ کیا کہ غلام فاطمہ نے زبانی طور پر جائیداد تحفے میں دینے کی پیشکش کی، جسے قبول کر لیا گیا۔ لیکن انہوں نے قبضہ کی منتقلی کو ثابت نہیں کیا، جو کہ تحفے کی ایک اہم شرط ہے۔
9. جواب دہندگان نے تحفے کی پیشکش، قبولیت، یا قبضہ کی منتقلی کا واضح حساب نہیں دیا۔ قبضہ کی منتقلی کی عدم تکمیل ان کے دعویٰ کو کمزور کرتی ہے۔
10. مدت کی بات کرتے ہوئے، اعلان کے مقدمے کی مدت چھ سال ہے، جیسا کہ دفعات 120 کی مدتِ تحدید کے تحت ہے۔ جعلسازی پر مبنی لین دین مدت کے اختتام سے محفوظ نہیں ہوتا، جیسا کہ سپریم کورٹ نے کہا ہے۔
11. اس لیے، سول ریویژن کو منظور کیا جاتا ہے۔ ابتدائی عدالتوں کے فیصلے اور احکام کو مسترد کر دیا جاتا ہے اور درخواست گزاروں کی درخواست کو تسلیم کیا جاتا ہے، تحفے کی منتقلی نمبر (ایکس P3) کو جعلسازی اور غیر قانونی قرار دیتے ہوئے۔
**(صداقت علی خان)**
**جج**
**رپورٹنگ کے لیے منظور شدہ**
Stereo. H C J D A-38.
JUDGMENT SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT,
RAWALPINDI BENCH RAWALPINDI
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
C.R.No.466-D of 2012
Mst.Ghulam Fatima (deceased) through L.Rs.
V.
Muhammad Khan etc.
J U D G M E N T
Date of hearing:
08.02.2022
Petitioners by:
Sh.Zamir Hussain, Advocate.
Respondents by:
Muhammad Khan, one of the
respondents present with written
arguments. On the last date of
hearing (07.02.2022), arguments
advanced by the learned counsel
for the respondents (Malik Amjad Ali
Advocate) had been heard at full
length in absence of learned
counsel for the petitioners.
Sadaqat Ali Khan, J. The only
controversy between the parties is as to whether
Ghulam Fatima/plaintiff (Donor), predecessor in
interest of the petitioners had gifted her property
measuring 46-Kanals 7-Marlas to her paternal
uncles, Muhammad Khan, Gulab Khan and Ahmed
Khan/respondents No.1 to 3/defendants (Donees)
"respondents".
2.
Heard. Record perused.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioners does
not challenge inheritance mutation No.2043 dated
C.R.No.466 of 2012
29.06.1989 (Exh.P2) pertaining to Karam Khan
predecessor in interest of the parties.
4.
Unnecessary facts apart, Ghulam Fatima,
being plaintiff (predecessor in interest of the petitioners) on
02.10.2007 filed suit for declaration with the
assertations that she is owner in possession of suit
land i.e. 46-Kanals 7-Marlas, detail of which is
mentioned in the headnote as well as body of the
plaint which she inherited (inheritance mutation No.2043
dated 29.06.1989 Exh.P2 pertaining to Karam Khan) from her
paternal grandfather Karam Khan being daughter of
his pre-deceased son Muhammad Ali; that she had
not gifted suit property to any one; that gift mutation
No.2067 dated 31.07.1989 Exh.P3 (just one month after
the said inheritance mutation) allegedly got sanctioned on
her behalf in favour of her paternal uncles (Muhammad
Khan, Gulab Khan and Ahmed Khan respondents) is result of
fraud, ineffective upon her rights and liable to be
cancelled.
5.
The suit was contested by the respondents
through their written statement controverting the
assertions made in the plaint.
6.
Learned trial Court out of the divergent
pleadings of the parties framed issues. Both the
parties adduced their respective evidence i.e. oral as
well as documentary. At the end learned trial Court
after hearing the learned counsel for the parties
dismissed the suit of the petitioners vide judgment
and decree dated 10.02.2010. Appeal filed by the
petitioners met the same fate vide judgment and
66 of 2012
decree dated 03.03.2012, hence instant civil revision
by the petitioners.
7.
There is no cavil with this settled legal
proposition that mutation is not the document of title
rather the beneficiary is to prove the transaction as
mentioned in the mutation when challenged through
independent evidence. However, each case is to be
decided on its own merits. Likewise, it is the duty of
the beneficiary to prove the factum of disputed gift.
The essential ingredients of gift are offer, acceptance
and delivery of possession.
8.
In the present case, gift mutation (Exh.P3)
was challenged by donor (Ghulam Fatima/plaintiff) herself
and it was the duty of the donees (Muhammad Khan, Gulab
Khan and Ahmed Khan/respondents) to prove it.
9.
In order to prove the factum of gift, the
respondents stated in Para-4 of their written
statement that Ghulam Fatima (plaintiff) got inherited
suit land from her father Muhammad Ali s/o Karam
Khan, whereafter in presence of Muhammad Khan
s/o Namdar DW2 and Muhammad Khan s/o Zabra
Khan DW3 made offer qua gifting the suit property
to them which was accepted but to prove third
ingredient of gift did not state that possession
was also delivered to them. Relevant portion of
Para-4 of the written statement is hereby
reproduced:-
وجاجدیئاددمہیعوکاُےکسوادلےکہصحںیمےسیلمیھت۔وہاجدیئاددمہیع "
3ات 1 ن ودل زربا۔ دمحم اخن ودل اندمار انکسےئ رگنل دماع مہیلع ےن روربو دمحم اخ
وکہبہدےنییکشکشیپیکوجدماعمہیلعےنوبقلیک۔اُےکسدعبدمہیعے
C.R.No.466 of 2012
ازوخد ااقتنل درج رکاای۔ روربو رویوین آرسیف شیپ آ رک ااقتنل قحب دماع مہیلع
ربمن 1ات 3دصتقی و وظنمر رکےن یک تبسن ایبن دای۔ وبتق دصتقی ااقتنل
کلم کلف ریش ربمندار۔ دمحم اابقل ربمندارانکسےئ رگنل یھب وموجد ےھت۔
دمہیع ےن اینپ وخیش و راض دنمی ےس ااقتنل دصتقی رکاای اور ااقتنل رپ اانپ
اوگناھٹ یھب تبث ایک اھت۔ دمہیع اخودن ےک اےھچ ولسک ہن وہےن یک وہج ےس
دماع مہیلع ربمن1ات 3ےک اپس یلچ یئگ یھت اور اسل 2006کتاُےکناپس
ریہ۔ اس دوران دماعمہیلع ےن دمہیع اک تہب ایھچ رطح ایخل راھک اور رہ
رضورت وک وپرا ایک۔ اہتبل اخودن یک وافت ےک دعب دمہیع وک اےنپےلےئگ"۔
Respondents being beneficiary neither mentioned
the date, time and place of making of gift in the
written statement nor in the evidence produced by
them before the learned trial court. Respondents
have also not stated in their written statement that
after offer and acceptance qua the gift, possession of
suit property was also handed over to them. In this
way, non-fulfilment of third ingredient of gift i.e.
delivery of possession is fatal to the case of donees.
It is also well settled by the superior courts that no
party is allowed to lead evidence beyond its
pleadings, if produced, cannot be considered.
Ambiguous plea mentioned in the written statement
by the respondents showing joint offer by their
paternal niece Ghulam Fatima plaintiff (donor) and
joint acceptance from their side is sufficient to falsify
their version. It is also mentioned in above
reproduced Para of the written statement that after
making of oral gift, Ghulam Fatima (plaintiff) went to
revenue office and got sanctioned the disputed gift
mutation Exh.P3, perusal of which shows that only
C.R.No.466 of 2012
Muhammad Khan (respondents No.1) one of the
respondents was present there, other donees
(respondents No.2 & 3) were not there and also not
appeared before the learned trial court in support of
gift. Ghulam Fatima plaintiff (predecessor in interest of the
petitioners) had three sons (present petitioners), there was
no reason to deprive them by the mother (Ghulam
Fatima plaintiff) by giving suit property to their paternal
uncles (respondents) through gift mutation Exh.P3
(mutation No.2067 dated 31.07.1989) just after one month of
acquiring the suit land measuring 46-Kanals 7-
Marals vide inheritance mutation No.2043 dated
29.06.1989 (Exh.P2). Respondents in above Para of the
written statement specifically stated that gift was
made before Muhammad Khan s/o Namdar and
Muhammad Khan s/o Zabra Khan (DW2 & DW3
respectively) but they while appearing before the
learned trial court did not disclose the factum of gift,
offer, acceptance and delivery of possession with
exact date, time and place as revealed from their
statements which are reproduced below in the
fitness of things:-
DW-2
"ایبن ایک ہک رفنیقی وک اجاتن وہں۔ رقتًابی 20اسل 1/2 2امہ لبق ریمےاسےنم دمہیع
ےن اہک ہک دماعمہیلع 1ات 3وک اہک ہک آپ ےن ریمی ڑبی دختم یک ےہ اور ںیم اےنپ
دادا ےس ےنلم واال رہبق آپ وک ششخب رکان اچیتہ وہں وکسج دماعمہیلع 1ات 3ےن وبقل
ایک۔ اس وتق دمہیع ۔دماعمہیلع 1ات 3۔ ںیم اور دمحم اخن ودل زربا وموجد ےھت۔"
DW-3
"ایبن ایک ےہ ہک رقتًابی 20اسل 1/2 3 ،2امہ لبق ریمے روربو دمہیع ےن دماعمہیلع 1
ات 3وک اہک ہک ںیم یف لیبس اہلل رہبق وج ہک ےھجم دادا یک وراتث ےس الم ےہ۔اس رپ ہبہ رک
دانی اچیتہ وہں ویکہکن آپ ولوگں ےن ریمی ڑبی دختم یک ےہ اس وتق دمہ
ےک ونیتں اچچ اگن دماعمہیلع 1ات 3وموجد ےھت دمحم اخن ودل اندمار یھب وموجد اھت۔ ںیم
افہمط اور دماعمہیلع وک ذایت وطر رپ اجاتن وہں دمہیع یک شیپ شک دماع مہیلع 1ات 3ےن
وبقل یک ۔ "
Both the above witnesses of gift had not stated about
the fulfillment of third ingredient of gift i.e. delivery
of possession of suit property by the donor to the
donees. The above discussed facts suggest that
respondents (donees) being beneficiaries have failed to
prove the factum of disputed gift and gift mutation
(Exh.P3) which is not sustainable under the law being
result of fraud and misrepresentation and is
cancelled. Reliance in this context is placed on the
cases reported as (PLD 1990 SC 1 “GHULAM ALI
and 2 OTHERS V. Mst.GHULAM SARWAR NAQVI”),
(2010 SCMR 342 “MUHAMMAD EJAZ and 2 others
V. Mst.KHALIDA AWAN and another”), (2020 SCMR
1021 “MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and others V. SAKINA
BIBI and others”), (2020 SCMR 276 “MUHAMMAD
SARWAR V. MUMTAZ BIBI and others”), (2021
SCMR 73 “ATTA MUHAMMAD and others V.
Mst.MUNIR SULTAN (DECEASED) through her LRs
and others) and (2021 SCMR 179 “FARHAN ASLAM
and others V. Mst.NUZBA SHAHEEN and another).
10.
As far as the question of limitation is
concerned, it has been argued that limitation for
filing of a suit for declaration is six years under
Article 120 of the Limitation Act. Ghulam Fatima
plaintiff (predecessor in interest of the petitioners) alleged
donor, by filing suit sought declaration that gift
mutation in question was illegal and had
C.R.No.466 of 2012
fraudulently been entered in the revenue record.
Each entry in the revenue record gives fresh cause of
action to an aggrieved person and adverse entries in
the revenue record, even if allowed, but remained
unchallenged, do not have the effect of extinguishing
the rights of a party against whom such entries had
been made. Even otherwise, any transaction of the
document which is the result of fraud or
misrepresentation can neither be perpetuated nor
can it be protected on the ground of expiry of the
period of limitation, whenever such transaction is
assailed in a Court of law as is held by the Apex
Court in the cases reported as (2016 SCMR 862
“GHULAM FARID and another V. SHER REHMAN
through LRs.) & (PLD 2020 S.C 338 “MUHAMMAD
YAQOOB V. Mst.SARDARAN BIBI and others”).
11.
For the foregoing reasons, this civil
revision is allowed. Impugned judgments and
decrees of the learned Courts below are hereby setaside, being suffered from mis-reading and nonreading of evidence and consequently the suit of the
petitioners is hereby decreed as prayed for to the
extent of gift mutation Exh.P3.
(Sadaqat Ali Khan)
Judge
Approved for Reporting
Judg
Comments
Post a Comment